Redistribute Ben Stein’s money

By |2016-05-21T20:32:29+00:00May 6th, 2016|Climate|923 Comments

Jimmy Kimmel called those who question the narrative on “climate change” “insane.”  Count his friends and former co-hosts Ben Stein and Adam Carolla among the free-thinking deranged.

But for economist Ben Stein giving Kimmel his start in television, few would recognize the name Jimmy Kimmel today.

On Monday, May 2nd, talk show host KimJimmy Kimmelmel aired clips of scientists dropping the F-bomb after hundreds of movie theaters showed CFACT’s film Climate Hustle. Kimmel went on a rant that lasted two nights in which he stated that anyone who questions what they are told about climate change is basically “insane.”

To Kimmel, comparing real world temperature data to computer models, or checking claims that today’s weather is “extreme” against historical weather data is the equivalent of “denying” the existence of “yogurt.”

Kimmel deployed the secret weapon of lazy comedians everywhere, profanity; guaranteed to get a cheap laugh with no danger of the writers working up a sweat.

Hey Jimmy, why don’t you have your friend, mentor and well known climate questioner Ben Stein on your show and ask him?

Win Ben Stein's MoneyA young Jimmy Kimmel got his big break in television in 1997 when he was hired to co-host the game show Win Ben Stein’s Money on Comedy Central for the princely starting salary of $550 per episode.  Before that Kimmel had tried to get a career going in radio where he never achieved much success.

Kimmel’s got talent, but talent counts for nothing without a break.  Win Ben Stein’s Money was the break Kimmel needed.  Before long Stein and Kimmel were sharing an Emmy Award for best game show host.

The show was a lot of fun.  Contestants would compete against each other, and then Stein himself, to win cash from a pool of money.  What they didn’t win went to Stein.  Kimmel and Stein would poke plenty of fun at each other, but the underlying premise that made it work is that Stein is both brilliant and a veritable storehouse of knowledge.  Stein’s erudition is tBen Stein Daily Showough to deny.

In 1998, Ben Stein challenged the correspondents of The Daily Show to win his money and soundly defeated them.  Stein defeated Stephen Colbert in the final round 6-4.  We doubt any would have predicted at the time that two of the three legacy networks future late-night hosts were on Stein’s show that day.

Stein has great admiration for Kimmel’s talent and smarts.  The two are friends who remain in regular contact.

However, Ben Stein, the author of numerous books on personal growth and finance, is in no hurry to redistribute his money, or yours, to advance climate policies that won’t meaningfully alter the temperature of the Earth.

In December, at the time of the UN climate talks in Paris (CFACT was there!), Stein appeared on the Neil Cavuto show and asked, “What if man-made climate change is a fraud?”  After presenting the Green credentials he earned for having written the first speech on The “Clean Air Act” for the Nixon administration, Stein stated that, “Climate change is very much in question.  The Earth stopped heating up about 25 years ago.  The data that shows that the Earth is the hottest it’s been in 200 years or whatever, is very much in question because the data from 200 years ago is extremely specious.  Yes, the polar ice cap in the North Pole is melting, but the polar ice cap in the South Pole is getting very very much bigger very rapidly… I can remember very well in the sixties and early seventies when we were fearing a new ice age.  What if by any chance all this climate change: a – is not happening, or b – if it is happening is not man-made, or c- if it is man-made if it’s not coming from the U.S. but coming from China and India… and we’re going to crucify the American worker and the American businessman in the name of a false goal? … It’s not irrefutable.”

The Chinese “are the one’s ginning out all these pollutants that are supposedly causing global warming and they haven’t even promised to stop,” Stein continued, “they’ve just promised they’ll consider it at some point down the road.”

In April of 2016, Stein appeared again on Fox and asked, “why this hatred of the fossil fuel companies?”  He answered his own question, “there is something deeply sick and psychologically awful about it.  I think it has to do with the envy of the intellectual chattering class.”

Jimmy Kimmel should heed Ben Stein’s real concern.  “I am more worried about saving political freedom,” Stein told Cavuto, “that appears to me to be the real thing we arKimmel and Carolla with towele in danger of losing.”

While he’s at it Kimmel might want to check in with another close friend and his former co-host at The Man Show, Adam Carolla, who described the idea that mankind is the primary driver of any climate change as a “bizarre form of narcissism.”

So how’s that for a show? Kimmel, Stein and Carolla discuss the climate and we’ll learn who’s politically correct and who’s factually correct.  If you really want to open some minds and learn something invite Marc Morano, the host of Climate Hustle, on the show.

Follow that up with scientists.  Match up Kimmel’s group with Doctors Roy Spencer, Dick Lindzen, Judith Curry, Fred Singer, Nils Axel Morner, Freeman Dyson, John Christy, Will Happer and David Legates for a start.

If anyone mouths off about flat Earth or denying the moon landing, throw in Apollo astronauts Walt Cunningham and Jack Schmitt for some real perspective.  While you’ve got them in the studio, ask them how the Obama administration turned NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies into a propaganda organ for the climate campaign.  Are America’s pioneers in space “insane” too?

Sorry you’ve been hustled about the climate, Jimmy.  If you’re as smart as Ben Stein says you are, and willing to open your mind and host a fair discussion, you’ll learn.  Once you learn the facts hopefully you won’t be so easily hustled again.

If you learn anything, Jimmy, how about this: If you insist on insulting the intelligence of one entire side of a public policy debate in order to silence them, be prepared to hurt some very fine and credible people; including people you know, respect, and care about.  That’s “insane.”

Climate-Hustle-Producers

923 Comments

  1. Adrian Vance May 8, 2016 at 2:23 PM

    This is all so simple if you know the facts:

    CO2 is a “trace gas” in air and is insignificant by definition. It absorbs 1/7th as much IR, heat energy, from sunlight per molecule as water vapor which has 188 times as many molecules capturing 1200 times as much heat producing 99.8% of all “global warming.” CO2 does only 0.2% of it. For this we should destroy our economy, starve the world, cause hunger, riots and wars?

    There is no “greenhouse effect” in an atmosphere. A greenhouse has a solid, clear cover trapping heat. The atmosphere does not trap heat as gas molecules cannot form surfaces to work as greenhouses that admit and reflect energy depending on sun angle. Gases do not form surfaces as their molecules are not in contact.

    The Medieval Warming from 800 AD to 1300 AD Micheal Mann erased for his “hockey stick” was several Fahrenheit degrees warmer than anything “global warmers” fear. It was 500 years of world peace and abundance, longest ever.

    Vostock Ice Core data analysis show CO2 rises followed temperature by 800 years 19 times in 450,000 years. Therefore temperature change is cause and CO2 change is effect. This alone refutes the anthropogenic global warming hypothesis.

    Methane is called “a greenhouse gas 20 to 500 times more potent than CO2,” by Heidi Cullen and Jim Hansen, but it is not per the energy absorption chart at the American Meteorological Society. It has an absorption profile very similar to nitrogen which is classified “transparent” to IR, heat waves and is only present to 18 ppm. “Vegans” blame methane in cow flatulence for global warming in their war against meat consumption.

    Carbon combustion generates 80% of our energy. Control and taxing of carbon would give the elected ruling class more power and money than anything since the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.

    Most scientists and science educators work for tax supported institutions. They are eager to help government raise more money for them and they love being seen as “saving the planet.”

    Read the whole story in “Vapor Tiger” at Amazon.com, Kindle $2.99 including a free Kindle reading program for your computer.

    Google “Two Minute Conservative” for clarity.

    • Denis Ables May 8, 2016 at 4:30 PM

      Regarding the fact that the Medieval Warming Period was a global phenomenon and likely warmer than now….

      If the 1,000+ peer-reviewed temperature studies, which represent the work of investigators and organizations from 40+ countries is not sufficient (links to all via co2science.org) for Kimmel, perhaps the 6,000 boreholes around the globe will help. (Boreholes perhaps not as accurate at temperature measurements, but very good at demonstrating that the MWP trend was global.)

      Then there is the recent exposure by two receding glaciers (Mendenhall in Alaska, and another in the Alps) of splintered tree trunks still upright in their original position, the former dated about 1,000 years ago, the latter, about 4,000 years ago. Both demonstrate that trees have not been growing at that latitude for a very long time. Furthermore, trees are not known to grow anywhere near glaciers. Then there are the antique vineyards, also discovered at latitudes where grapes can no longer be grown. This evidence (which CANNOT be brushed aside as “anecdotal”) is DENIED by the alarmists because they cannot answer why it is cooler now than back then.

      There is no empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER (even over geologic periods) had any impact on our climate’s temprature, and co2 has been considerably higher than now during most of this planet’s existence.

      The alarmist base their entire claim on two recent decades of warming, a miniscule (so insignificant) duration. Our current warming (such as it is) began NOT in the mid 1800s, but, by definition, at the bottom of the little ice age which took place in the mid 1600s. That’s 200 years of warming BEFORE co2 level began is rise (and also 200 years BEFORE our industrial revolution). … But it gets worse for the alarmists because co2 annual rate of increase (about 2ppmv) would have had to continue for about another century before it could possibly have impacted temperature measurements. That pushes natural warming from 1650 to about 1950. But… there was a mild cooling from the 40s to the mid 70s. The WARMING has taken place completely between about 1975 and 1998. Both our weather satellites show no further temperature increase right up to now, and that’s inspite of an El Nino which cranked up before midyear 2015 and is likely still underway.

      The likely upcoming La Nina (a cooling) should cause even more consternation among those claiming their “science” is “settled”. That’s why they’re in such a hurry. They want to be able to claim that their actions have reversed the warming trend.

      Kimmel: why do you suppose that neither NOAA nor NASA (both of whom using terrestrial data) NEVER even mention the two federally funded weather satellite data (which agrees quite well with balloon data)? Why did these government agencies last year quietly attempt to over-ride ocean data from 3,000 ARGO buoys (designed specifically for that job) by re-introducing older and dubious sea surface temperature data with known biases?

      • Adrian Vance May 8, 2016 at 5:11 PM

        You are correct and all the temperature estimations for the Medieval warming, as there were no thermometers from 800 AD to 1300 AD, are from plant records of where they grew. Every plant has a specific number of “degree-days” needed to complete its season, make fruit or grain and knowing where they grew tells you what the daily temperatures had to be.

        During that time they were growing wine grapes in northern England and that cannot be done now, for example.

        • Denis Ables May 8, 2016 at 5:27 PM

          What’s annoying about this is that alarmists want to know which of those studies, specifically, refute their claim. The real point is where are their studies backing their claim? After all, it only takes a half dozen studies remote from each other, so covering much of the globe, to show that the MWP was global. Not only are there many more than that, but confirming studies continue to come in almost weekly to co2science.org.

          Rather ironic that these studies (not based on casual opinion or a poll) are by investigators, so would appear to provide an actual (and useful) “consensus”. The folks who pretend to understand scientific method but refuse to accept this evidence have to be considered LIARs.

          Even Phil Jones, one of the IPCC players (at least during the ClimateGate scenario) has been quoted as saying “If the MWP was global that’s a whole different ballgame”. Strange, that a lay person (such as me) has no difficulty understanding the implications this evidence, when supposed experts continue to doubt……

          • Adrian Vance May 8, 2016 at 5:34 PM

            It has been shown by the Vostok Ice Core Studies and plant growth/crop records in the far east (China) that the Medieval Warming period was indeed world wide. And, that was well known at the time Phil Jones made that comment so he was either exposing his own ignorance or arrogance, or both.

            • cshorey May 11, 2016 at 3:24 AM

              Phil probably read actual science literature (not sure what you’re reading) such as: Hughes, M.K., andH.F. Diaz. 1994.Was there a “Medieval Warm Period” and if so, where and when?Climate Change30:1-33.
              Or: Jirikowic, J.L., andP.E. Damon. 1994.The Medieval solar activity maximum.Climate Change26:309-316.
              MWP is not globally equivalent to today, and is mostly solar which would cause a warming troposphere and stratosphere, but has been predicted with greenhouse warming, and observed with modern warming, the troposphere warms, but the stratosphere cools. Big difference.

              • Denis Ables May 11, 2016 at 9:15 AM

                Perhaps you’d like to discuss the obvious global MWP trend shown by 6,000 boreholes? Readers should understand that it would only take a few temperature assessments scattered around the globe to refute the alarmist lie that the MWP was not global. There is considerably more locations showing that trend (all links via co2science.org)

                • cshorey May 11, 2016 at 9:25 AM

                  Sure, I already did. I mentioned PAGES study which takes in boreholes, tree rings, speleothems, ice cores, sediment cores, corrals, . . . in other words, it’s a comprehensive overview not a cherry picked data set. Liking your cherries Dennis? You cherry pick, I give you general overview studies to show why you shouldn’t, you turn around and do it again. Fail.

                  • Denis Ables May 11, 2016 at 1:42 PM

                    You continue to ignore the numerous studies (all accessible via links provided by co2science.org). You’re also not giving the reader anything specific.

                    In order for a scientist to claim that the MWP was NOT global, their “general” study must consist of temperature data from numerous locations around the globe, all showing no MWP trend. That’s impossible, of course, because it took 40+ countries and numerous investigators and organizations to establish the evidence which contradict your bogus “PAGES” claim. That’s without counting the 6,000 boreholes and such things as the recently exposed dated trees and the antique vineyards, also found at latitudes where no grapes can be grown now.

                    • cshorey May 11, 2016 at 1:44 PM

                      co2science is a website to cherry pick the story that you want to tell here. It is not an independent unbiased peer reviewed source. I gave you the PAGES study specifically. It is not bogus. It is considered the best summation of paleoclimate to date. You clearly are afraid to read it.

                    • Denis Ables May 11, 2016 at 2:30 PM

                      co2science has all the studies. However, if you’d like to think all 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies are “cherry-picked’ to show the MWP was global, that should definitely amuse readers.

                    • CB May 17, 2016 at 1:36 PM

                      “co2science has all the studies.”

                      lol! “Studies”.

                      That site, as well as this one are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of their product.

                      Is it possible you’re too stupid to see a conflict of interest so obvious?

                      “CFACT has received over $4.1 million in funds from Donor’s Trust and Donor’s Capital Fund between 2002-2011, plus an additional $582,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998-2012”

                      http://www.desmogblog.com/committee-constructive-tomorrow

                    • Denis Ables May 17, 2016 at 2:07 PM

                      That’s a cop-out. Why? Because skeptics can claim the same about the various alarmist facilities, certainly about your website, and also about government “scientific” agencies (which are invariably run by political appointees.) So, that leaves us with NOTHING.

                      The studies provided by co2science involve 40+ countries, and numerous investigators. Few, if any, have any other connection to co2science which, on this issue, is merely performing a library function. That’s over 1,000 peer-reviewed studies at last count (which has been some while ago). I would think the worst case scenario would be that co2science has collected only those studies which confirm its particular bias. So what? The links provide names of organizations and researchers and their reports, and the results conflict with alarmist claims.

                      But, it’s the alarmists who have claimed that the MWP was regional and not all that warm, apparently in a desperate attempt to fend off the truth. However, they are OBLIGATED to provide justification for THEIR claim. (That’s the way science is supposed to work, and so far you’ve provided NOTHING!)

                      How many such studies do you believe are necessary to prove that the MWP was global ? I would think even half a dozen such studies, if each is remote from the others would suffice to render the alarmist claim (that MWP was regional) very DUBIOUS, ( if not an outright LIE.) Also, keep in mind that not every study hits pay dirt. There are almost invariably at least some small areas where global climate phenomenon is not obvious.

                      Are you also assuming that the 6,000 boreholes which confirm that the MWP was global were all done by the evil fossil fuel folks? What about the evidence recently exposed by two receding glaciers (Mendenhall in Alaska and one in the Alps), both now showing splintered tree trunks still in their upright position (and dated, respectively, 1,000 years and 4,000 years? And how about the ancient vineyards found where grapes cannot be grown even today?

                      All that aside, and no surprise, you did manage to ignore my request for evidence to support your belief (the IPCC claim.)

                    • CB May 17, 2016 at 2:18 PM

                      “skeptics can claim the same about the various alarmist facilities”

                      Sure! Crazy people can claim whatever they want!

                      …but if they are suggesting there exists a worldwide conspiracy that’s persisted for over a century without detection, is that likely to be persuasive, Denis?

                      “The heat-trapping nature of carbon dioxide and other gases was demonstrated in the mid-19th century”

                      climate.nasa.gov/evidence

                    • Denis Ables May 17, 2016 at 2:30 PM

                      Skeptics are claiming that the alarmists are wrong. It’s not unusual that alarmists (by definition) are making lots of noise. There is a lot of money involved (much more, actually, than fossil fuel contributions.)

                      And, you seem to be claiming that skeptics are involved in some kind of conspiracy…..?

                      “Heat trapping” by co2 was determined by an experiment in a closed chamber, a greenhouse. That is hardly representative of the open atmosphere, where satellites detect heat escaping to space. Neither are there any planetary feedbacks (think oceans), within a greenhouse.

                      So far, you’re all bloviation, but you haven’t been capable of providing any empirical evidence that co2 has EVER had any impact on the planet’s global temperature (even over geologic periods, when co2 level was 2,000+ppmv most of the time). Neither have you provided any evidence supporting the alarmist claim that the MWP was merely regional.

                      Don’t keep us waiting.

                    • Bart_R May 19, 2016 at 11:20 AM

                      Can you provide us with examples of ‘alarm’ being valuable?

                      One supposes from your usage that anyone who gives, or heeds, any alarm is an ‘alarmist’.

                      Can you think of examples of this version of skepticism of yours that have proven to fail?

                      Now, to me, it would be most useful to use words in a way that doesn’t render them merely meaningless insults, just devil words and angel words of propaganda; from my point of view I’d only use ‘alarmist’ to identify some disproportionate or inappropriate usage of alarm, and ‘skeptic’ to identify someone who practiced evenhanded skepticism without ulterior agenda or group bias.

                      So, I’d have to reject your usages, which I can only term manipulations. Making you a manipulator.

                      Why are you a manipulator?

                      Who raised you?

                      Your arguments are gross oversimplifications, impossible expectations, false narratives, ad hominem, cherry picking, and simple outright lies.

                      They must be so proud.

                    • CB May 21, 2016 at 4:40 PM

                      “Skeptics are claiming that the alarmists are wrong.”

                      That seems to be a redefinition of the words “skeptic”, “alarmist” and “wrong”.

                      Are you saying your beliefs about AGW have absolutely nothing at all to do with the science?

                      If that’s true, why should anyone take you seriously?

                      “Without greenhouse gases, Earth would be a frozen -18 degrees Celsius (0 degrees Fahrenheit).”

                      earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/CarbonCycle/page5.php

                    • Denis Ables May 21, 2016 at 5:10 PM

                      You can’t keep your head in the context.

                      If I said anthing it would be that the alarmists are not basing their belief on the science, obviously

                      You do understand that as the co2 level rises it becomes less effective as a greenhouse gas? In fact, at this point it has basically consumed nearly all of the sun energy bandwidth available to it. Further increases in co2 level will have such a minimal impact as to be unmeasurable.

                      Incidentally, you’re at NASA, why do some of your folks talk about the “hottest” month when the difference between recent years is so miniscule that it’s well within the uncertainty error? Ask then why they ignore the satellite data (which agrees quite well with weather balloon data?)

                      Also, aren’t you the same CB who always jumps in about Venus, and who doesn’t understand the basic gas equation?

                    • CB May 21, 2016 at 6:51 PM

                      “You do understand that as the co2 level rises it becomes less effective as a greenhouse gas?”

                      Yes!

                      The relationship between greenhouse gasses and planetary temperature is roughly logarithmic.

                      Does a logarithmic function have an upper bound, Denis?

                      Do you think there might be a reason I keep pointing you to the fact that CO₂ makes the surface of Venus hot enough to melt lead?

                      “Carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas that traps infrared radiation beneath Venus’s thick cloud cover. A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!”

                      science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast20feb_1

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 2:19 PM

                      A runaway greenhouse effect is what makes Venus even hotter than Mercury!”

                      You have to remind yourself that just because something is said on the internet – even if it is said on a page from a source that may be otherwise authoritative – it is not necessarily correct.

                      As on Earth, where the hottest temperatures ever measured were measured in places of extremely LOW elevation, the surface temperature of Venus is largely determined by atmospheric PRESSURE just as it is here on Earth when we’re talking about temperature records which, curiously, tend to occur at places where higher surface TEMPERATURES occur during times of higher surface PRESSURE.

                      There’s a simple reason for this, as people who understand basic physics know. Perhaps you might want to study basic physics more and spend less time spreading lies, talking points and propaganda on line.

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 11:17 PM

                      This is an incomplete assessment again. You have not taken the albedo of the Venusian atmosphere into account at all. There is definitely a higher pressure, but when you look at the total W/m^2 getting to the surface, you have to explain how that thicker atmosphere retains so much of the meager energy coming in. A 98% CO2 atmosphere sure helps, and you need to take account of that, or else yo don’t understand Venus.

                    • Bodhisattva July 29, 2016 at 6:39 PM

                      It’s fairly clear that any assessment that does not fit your chosen world view will not be acceptable to you.

                      The key facts you are overlooking are many, I will touch on just a few:

                      If you know anything about the emission curves of the Earth and Venus, indeed about general emission curves, you will know that the amount of energy leaving the surface of the Earth in the narrow bands covered by CO2 is much less than the amount of energy leaving the surface of Venus in those bands. This is basic physics, isn’t it? Do we need to go deeper into it or will you stipulate that fact is essentially correct even if I’ve not put it in technical terms to your satisfaction?

                      If you know anything about the composition of the atmospheres of Earth and Venus you will now there are many orders of magnitude more water vapor, which has a much stronger ability to temporarily absorb IR energy over much of the IR spectrum than does carbon dioxide. You also should know that there are other ways that water vapor carries energy right past what little CO2 is in the atmosphere in the first place.

                      Which brings us to the fact that I’ve already mentioned, which you have ignored, concerning the actual presence of CO2 and also the actual change. This is often expressed by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism in ways which are clearly deliberately intended to fool those who really are essentially clueless about these issues into believing that both the amount of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere and the change in that amount are significant – when they in fact ARE NOT, because a change from 3 molecules per 10,000 to 4 molecules per 10,000 is an insignificant change and in fact the amount of either 3 or 4 per 10,000 is also insignificant, given the other constituents present. Further, you can’t compare the atmosphere of Earth to that of Venus (yet you still do) because one has essentially next to NO CO2 and the other has essentially ONLY CO2, it could be argued.

                      Albedo – yes the clouds of Venus tend to reflect a great deal of radiation – but due to the much closer proximity to the sun and other factors, chief among these there is no hydrologic cycle in Venus to assist with transporting and shedding heat, and t here is no water vapor to do the heavy lifting with regards to both the slowing of heat loss on the one hand and the speeding of heat loss on the other – it is easy to see why the planet would be so much hotter. I find those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism tend to focus on single aspects and fail to discuss or admit that atmospheric physics is a complex interplay of a number of processes.

                      Finally you’re really trying to compare the clouds on Venus with those on Earth? They’re made up of totally different chemicals, causing them to have totally different properties – I find it difficult to believe a person who is both educated and honest would attempt to make such a comparison.

                      you have to explain how that thicker atmosphere retains so much of the meager energy

                      Again you are completely missing the point – heat is a function of pressure as well, not just what is coming in and what is being retained. But the very thing you’re stuck on, the albedo, which is the result of clouds, is part of the answer perhaps? While it is a poor example (as I’ve said above) because you really can’t compare the clouds (or atmospheres) of Earth and Venus in meaningful ways due to their significantly different compositions, we do see on Earth that clouds can both improve and impede the progress of energy that is escaping from the surface of the Earth to space depending on what type of clouds we’re talking about and where they are.

                      So the simple question back to you is this: Compared to Earth, considering both the surface areas of both planets and the time aspect, over a given 24 hour period, on average, what percentage of the Earth is covered in clouds that tend to retain IR energy and what percentage of Venus is covered in clouds that tend to retain IR energy.

                      Also as a follow up, it seems the atmosphere of Venus tends (from what I’ve understood) to be somewhat static – not completely, mind you, but somewhat invariant to a great degree, from what we’ve been able to measure, at least in a gross sense. Not so with the Earth and it’s atmosphere – thanks in part to the major differences in atmospheric (and for that matter surface) aspects of both planets, the Earth is clearly a much more dynamic place with many more processes changing over time in a constantly shifting and awe-inspiring, complex dance which, clearly, is a key part of why those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism have gotten so much so wrong so often. Starting with wildly overestimating both CO2’s effects along with the resulting climate sensitivity and going right on through the failure to understand and admit to the key role of water vapor (because they can blame evil corporations that have deep pockets for the former but not the latter) and other clearly robust negative feedbacks – and let’s also not forget the apparently incorrect radical and clearly incorrect minimization of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

                    • cshorey July 30, 2016 at 7:32 AM

                      Here you didn’t take thermal equilibrium into account and think of heat as a more static entity. Again, Mr. Frog, you have shown insufficient knowledge to discuss this competently.

                    • Bodhisattva July 30, 2016 at 5:28 PM

                      Man, thank you for continuing to mention that you’re so much smarter than me. Someone reading our comments, were you not to continually reassure yourself and them of that alleged fact, would never know otherwise.

                      When a person is secure in their own knowledge I find they rarely/never feel the need to remind others of how much smarter they are than everyone else. However, on the other hand, the narcissists I know are continually pointing out how much smarter, more interesting, better looking and just all around BETTER they are than everyone.

                      Here’s your sign:

                      https://nirumeetu.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/divorcing-a-narcissist_warning-sign.jpg

                    • cshorey August 3, 2016 at 4:55 PM

                      “Man, thank you for continuing to mention that you’re so much smarter than me.” Proper grammar would be “smarter than I” 😉 What I’ve been saying is you are not as knowledgeable in climate science, and, in fact, demonstrating such deficiencies that you are having a tremendous trouble making any cogent argument, nor understanding of my replies. That is a statement on your climate science smarts, not general smarts. I’m sure there are areas you know more about than I. Step up the dialogue. And look into the water vapor feedback a la Svante Arrhenius.

                    • Gary Ashe March 31, 2017 at 8:53 PM

                      I/ve read the whole exchange so far, and you have provided nothing factual to the debate, typical young progressive, knows it all, yet knows nothing, and makes alot of well written adolescent noise doing it, you are a whole generation of man children, worthless t0ssers the lot of you.

                    • LTJ October 11, 2017 at 8:45 AM

                      Actually, despite the unnecessary hostilities, both of these gentlemen have added much of value to the discussion. You, on the other hand, distract and detract from its value.

                      Do STFU.

                    • Gary Ashe October 11, 2017 at 9:11 AM

                      And another Twatism personifying progressive [email protected] chip’s in.

                      Come back and try to impress once your ball’s have dropped son.

                    • LTJ October 11, 2017 at 9:26 AM

                      Stupid, pitiful AND useless?

                      I bet your mama’s proud.

                    • Bodhisattva July 31, 2016 at 4:18 PM

                      I think I already answered this one, but if not, it is an answer to a detailed post by me and, frankly, your response, other than another obvious ad hominem attack, doesn’t really begin to address anything I said.

                      It does contain one blatant falsehood and some really convoluted logic all rolled into one:

                      you didn’t take thermal equilibrium into account and think of heat as a more static entity.

                      You are the one talking about “equilibrium”, which implies at least a somewhat static state. I am talking about dynamic systems though you’re right, for the very reasons I gave, the density and consistency of the atmosphere of Venus, there is some tendency to reach an equilibrium point and to tend to remain static around that point – though here you seem to claim otherwise and to attempt to ridicule ideas and concepts you expressed as well, shooting yourself in both feet in the process.

                      So, regarding your statement about equilibrium, are you claiming the temperature of Venus does not change? Are you claiming that there is no heat flow between the Venusian atmosphere and space? Not really sure what you are getting at here because, as usual, you’re just throwing out terms that, due to the way you used them, it appears you might not really know what they mean.

                      Where is it that you’re claiming that some system is in thermal equilibrium with itself because the temperature within the system is spatially and temporally uniform? Or, in other words, static? Even though you go on and accuse ME of falsely believing it is static, when I never said or suggested that, YOU DID!

                      Ribbet

                    • cshorey August 1, 2016 at 8:35 PM

                      To say you have insufficient knowledge to discuss this competently is not ad hominem. You misunderstand this basic logical fallacy as well. I am attacking your ideas, not you. When you post that I am a narcissist with no psychological testing nor any expertise in identification of such, you are performing an ad hominem. You attacked the man, not the ideas. See the difference? Now, you have admitted that CO2 on Venus causes the wildly high temperatures there. You admit it can retain heat in an atmosphere from what I can see, but let me address that in my next response where it is more directly concerned. And when I call you Mr. Frog it is for two reasons: you are not an enlightened being and do not deserve the title you narcissistically gave yourself (note I didn’t dare call you narcissistic as that would be ad hominem). I say that naming yourself enlightened or such is just self aggrandizing, and if you can’t back it up, I won’t call you that. Secondly, you are like the frog in the water slowly heating up and saying nothing is wrong. If you find this offensive, then realize it was in response to you calling me a chicken little claiming the sky was falling. And I like frogs too. Remember you started this conversation with me, and I’ve continued it out of a certain level of respect that you might be able to learn something in our discussions. I learn from discussion here, and you taught me that I need to check my references a bit more and not rely solely on memory.

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 5:56 PM

                      Pointing out that the repeated things you post demonstrate the traits commonly associated with narcissism is not an attack on you personally, merely pointing out that the things you post demonstrate the traits commonly associated with narcissism, which are readily available for review on the web.

                      Your claims I have “insufficient knowledge” are unsupported and are clearly attempts to simply call me an idiot in polite terms. However, since I know I’m not an idiot and I do have sufficient knowledge they’re a waste of time as they might make you feel better by reassuring yourself you’re smarter than me (and you may in fact be) but they don’t prove anything about me except perhaps you’ve formed yet another false opinion about me, just as you’ve demonstrated so many other false opinions about other things.

                      I’ve “admitted” that the ATMOSPHERE on Venus causes the high temperatures. If it were water vapor instead of CO2 there would still be high temperatures, though one has to look at the DENSITY of water vapor compared to CO2 to determine just how that change might change the temperature there. That atmosphere happens to be mostly CO2, as does the atmosphere of Mars. And yet on Mars, with a much less dense atmosphere, but still mostly CO2, we don’t see such extremely high temperatures – which is the point you seem to ignore.

                      I did not give myself this screen name – in fact when someone else suggested it I actively fought against accepting it but eventually I found the arguments compelling, for reasons not relevant here.

                      And nice how you clearly make an attempt to call me narcissistic in a roundabout way, then claim you’re not calling me a narcissist! As before, the streak of dishonesty continues in your posts, strong as ever!

                      And still with the Mr. Frog! You know I’ve told you that you’re welcome to call me whatever you want as it does not bother me and it does reveal the true nature of your character!

                      (Ribbet!)

                      I am very happy in a slowly heating world – everything I’ve seen to date, and presented here, and note that you’ve failed to rebut in any way, suggests a warmer, wetter world is a better world. And more CO2 is clearly better, too. This isn’t in dispute, it’s been observed, proven.

                      If I called you chicken little, which I don’t believe I did, then I take it back. But I believe I said something more to the effect of “people who claim the sky is falling LIKE CHICKEN LITTLE”. Or at least that was my intent, so if I was careless and actually called you chicken little then by all means I take it back, as I said. I’m not going to bother to look at the exact quote. Feel free to find and share it if the above is not sufficient.

                      My interpretation of all the semantics, name-calling and such is that it is the same I usually see from people who are determined not to actually discuss the issues, for whatever reason.

                    • cshorey August 4, 2016 at 12:36 PM

                      And if Venus’ atmosphere were all N2 . . . density would make no difference. That’s what you’re missing while playing armchair psychologist. A narcissist is not someone who has expertise in a field and tries to help a lost soul find true enlightenment. Sorry you don’t like being corrected.

                    • Bodhisattva August 6, 2016 at 2:56 PM

                      Sorry you don’t like being corrected.

                      Actually I would much rather be corrected than go on saying something that’s demonstrably false.

                      if Venus’ atmosphere were all N2 . . . density would make no difference.

                      This is false. While our atmosphere is not “all N2” it is practically all N2 (78%) and O2 (21%) and we see the effect I’m talking about in many places. Example:

                      When a parcel of air descends to a lower altitude it experiences adiabatic heating – likewise on Venus part of the extreme temperature, as admitted by those who aren’t fixated on falsehoods, is due to the DENSITY and the SURFACE PRESSURE that results. I’m guessing you don’t have much experience with air compressors and the temperature changes that occur in tandem with the compression or decompression of masses of gasses.

                      Specific example:

                      SANTA ANA WINDS:

                      – originate from cool, dry high-pressure air masses

                      – as the air descends from higher elevation to lower, it is heated adiabatically, warming about 5 °F for each 1,000 feet it descends

                      Specific example:

                      The hottest surface air temperatures tend to be measured at low altitudes. It is demonstrated that even without air movement, as you gain altitude in our atmosphere, you generally see a temperature decrease in the troposphere – the exception being a weather generated inversion layer, a temporary event that disrupts the general observation.

                      Specific example:

                      The highest point on Venus, Maxwell Montes, is the coolest point on Venus, with a temperature of about 655 K (380 °C) and an atmospheric pressure of about 4.5 MPa (45 bar). This despite the fact that the atmosphere is the same there as everywhere else on the planet, demonstrating the difference is due to density alone, not the amount of nitrogen that is or isn’t present.

                      I cannot say whether it is your urge to be right, your urge to find support for your chosen views even where it does not exist, or the simple fact your knowledge is so demonstrably deficient in so many ways that leads you to error, but you now have yet another chance to admit you’re wrong and start being right. I know you can do it, you’ve done it once, but can you, will you, again?

                    • Bodhisattva July 29, 2016 at 7:28 PM

                      This is an incomplete assessment again.

                      So is the fact you completely fail to understand the gravity of the fact that the density of the Venusian atmosphere is so much greater than that of Earth’s atmosphere and the many ways this fact affects the surface temperature of Venus as opposed to that of Earth.

                      you have to explain how that thicker atmosphere retains so much of the meager energy coming in.

                      Wow, you know the answer even though you don’t know you know it!

                    • cshorey July 30, 2016 at 7:31 AM

                      Wrong again Mr. Frog. The fact that the Venusian atmosphere is denser at the surface is only a part of the issue here. Venus is at about 0.72 astronomical units from the sun vs. Earth at 1.0, which means the solar constant for Venus is 645 W/m^2 compared to 342 W/m^2. Here’s what happens when you DO take albedo into account. Earth albedo is around 0.31 compared to venus at around 0.8. So the amount of energy that gets into the Earth’s climate system is about 242 W/m^2 compared to Venus with only 130 W/m2. So it is definitely the atmosphere of Venus that has the extra heating effect. If this thicker atmosphere were made out of N2 only, then Venus would be colder than Earth, but Venus has a 98% CO2 atmosphere, and as has been shown for over a century, CO2 is a greenhouse gas which retains more heat in the lower atmosphere until it reaches a new thermal equilibrium. So Venus is a good example of how far a greenhouse effect can go and should be a lesson for Mr. Frog on Earth. See if you can bring your dialog up to this level of scientific discourse.

                    • Bodhisattva July 30, 2016 at 5:06 PM

                      I’ll get back to you on the rest, but I felt compelled to point out that calling me “Mr. Frog” does not bother me (I like frogs) but it does make you look petty, childish, foolish and a number of other negative things too numerous to list. By all means, if you wish to continue to present yourself as such, carry on!

                    • Bodhisattva July 30, 2016 at 5:24 PM

                      So a drop in a greater amount of long wave being more than a smaller drop on another planet is not some kind of proof that there is no retention on that second planet?

                      I never said that – but you did!

                      This is a typical straw man – based no doubt on the fact you jump to WRONG conclusions about what I think and probably if you haven’t already you will misstate things I post as well – at least that is what typically happens when I try to discuss these things with anyone who is full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

                      Ribbet.

                      Wrong again Mr. Frog… Wrong Mr. Frog, so wrong. So Venus is a good example of how far a greenhouse effect can go and should be a lesson for Mr. Frog on Earth. See if you can bring your dialog up to this level of scientific discourse.

                      Don’t you mean DOWN to this level?

                      Anyway, you just posted a lot of stuff that certainly is true about an atmosphere made of mostly CO2 that is as DENSE as that of VENUS which is going to have (as we observe) completely different results for Venus than our INCOMPARABLE atmosphere has for Earth.

                      You cannot continue to expect me to believe that claiming the results from of an atmosphere that is as DENSE as that of Venus, composed of MOSTLY CO2, are applicable to an atmosphere that is MOSTLY N2 and O2 where the DENSITY is much lower as you just proved otherwise.

                      And I actually agree with you, at least in part, concerning much if not most or all of what you said here, other than that.

                      The key issue we seem to have is you seem to, at least you’ve convinced me that you continue to fail to acknowledge the role density plays in temperature – which is the one aspect of both atmospheres that is similar enough to be relevant to any discussion comparing the two, as both no doubt feature this well understood process. It’s not the density itself, since the density of the atmosphere of Venus is so much greater, but the effect density has on temperature. You know, adiabatic heating and cooling. You don’t seem to recognize or account for these processes in your otherwise fairly interesting post.

                      And, to reiterate, my only other major issue is your apparent belief that an atmosphere that is essentially entirely composed of CO2 is a relevant model for an atmosphere that consists mainly of N2 and O2. It is not. Might as well compare the atmosphere and surface temperature of Mars with that of Earth and start drawing other equally false conclusions.

                      Hey, wait a minute here… the atmosphere of Mars is ALSO MOSTLY CO2! Now I’m being a bit facetious here, since I know the answer, but using your logic and explanation of the overwhelming power of CO2, why isn’t Mars much hotter than it is?

                      And you maybe should take albedo into account in your considerations.

                      And maybe the density as well, as I’ve been suggesting from the start.

                      Ribbet.

                    • Bodhisattva July 31, 2016 at 4:28 PM

                      I think I also answered this one, but I think I intentionally left something out so I’ll add it here.

                      I don’t think I gave you credit for admitting the density of the atmosphere is significant, though you tried to belittle it.

                      You were the one that brought up albedo – and yet it seems you’re discounting a major part of the physical process that is the player here. For it works in both directions.

                      I did mention, in another post, that the location and type of clouds of water vapor here on Earth causes some of them to be a positive feedback while others are a negative feedback.

                      The same clouds on Venus that block some of the incident sunlight, thus preventing some solar heating, also inhibit the escaping IR energy. I hesitate to say they “trap” it, even though they are a physical layer, though not a fully solid one, because it eventually gets out. Let’s just say they delay it.

                      You stated that:

                      it is definitely the atmosphere of Venus that has the extra heating effect.

                      No, the atmosphere does not produce any heat, other than as I said, adiabatic perhaps. And it’s gravity that’s doing that, essentially.

                      Your statements do tend to prove that your understanding is flawed in key ways. For here you suggest you believe that the atmosphere is creating heat when in fact it is merely delaying the loss of heat that comes from other sources.

                      And you have the unmitigated gall to suggest I need to bring my dialog up, as you childishly call me names and continue to reveal your own need to convince yourself you’re so much smarter than me by saying so.

                      Ribbet.

                    • cshorey August 3, 2016 at 4:50 PM

                      Glad you got that clouds can act in both positive and negative feedbacks. That is true. The most recent work (look into Andy Dressler’s work from Texas A&M) indicates the overall feedbacks are positive.
                      Now when I say it is definitely the atmosphere that has the extra heating effect I am talking about heat retention, not formation. You followed my W/m^2 from the sun, so why didn’t you get that? I’ll use the WAG principle and say it is because you like to give people you disagree with the worst benefit of the doubt. No, the atmosphere does not produce any heat, and to say it does so adiabatically is to not understand that word. It means a change in temperature without an exchange of heat energy, so again, you don’t produce heat adiabatically. Sounded sciencey though. Your statements do show that you have too limited of an understanding to judge my comments properly. So with more unmitigated gall I say to you Mr. Frog (since you don’t like that should I just shorten your pretentious moniker to BS?) step up the dialogue; you are failing at every turn.

                    • Bodhisattva July 29, 2016 at 7:56 PM

                      You seem to believe I do not accept that CO2 interacts with a couple very narrow bands of IR energy such that it can delay the passage of energy in those bands from the surface of the Earth (or rather from any point in the atmosphere) to outer space.

                      Relax. I know it does.

                      Now, given the known abundance of of CO2 in the Earth’s atmosphere (ppmv) and in the Venusian atmosphere, express as a ratio the difference.

                      Another way to express what YOU are ignoring or at least doing a bunch of hand waving to avoid considering.

                      Everything you bring up is involved – but as with what is going on here on Earth, as I find is typical of those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, you insist that we only discuss the things you think support your conclusions and you stubbornly refuse to discuss in any detail the things that easily refute what you believe.

                      I’m willing to discuss anything and if you stop assuming I disagree with everything you say you will find that I’m willing to stipulate a lot of the things you believe are correct, at least to some degree – but experience shows us that they do not lead to the conclusions you claim, as evidenced by the recent statements by the IPCC and by several noted “climate scientists” (at least that’s what they claim to be – has anyone actually bothered to see what their degrees are?), including but not limited to Michael Mann, one of the fathers of the now debunked “hockey schtick”:

                      … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

                      SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

                      It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

                      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

                      Please explain how, if CO2 is the only significant determinant, or even the dominant determinant, of the admittedly incorrectly named “greenhouse effect” (which I’m not disputing, just disputing the silly, misleading, FALSE name it was given) and the resulting SURFACE WARMING, how it is that when there was less CO2 there was more surface warming and when there was more CO2 there was less surface warming.

                      And please, don’t tell me the monster is hiding under the bed, or in the closet. We’re adults.

                    • cshorey July 30, 2016 at 8:55 AM

                      First, the entire greenhouse warming we have on the planet of about 30 C is all due to trace gasses. N2, O2, Ar, He, H make up over 99.9% of the atmosphere and are unable to interact with long wave radiation. The larger molecules of H2O, CO2, O3, CH4, NOx . . . can and are called both trace gasses and greenhouse gasses. What Arhennius showed in the late 1800’s was that though H2O caused most of that 30C warming, it could not drive climate change because it’s atmospheric concentration is tied to the oceans’ surface temperature. If you were to magically remove all water vapor, or add much more, it would rapidly come back to 0.25% specific humidity. With water only having a 10 day residence time in the atmosphere, it can’t be a climate driver, but it can act as a feedback mechanism. CO2 on the other hand has a residence time closer to 150 years though that is a floating number as the oceans buffer in their ability to absorb atmospheric CO2. It can drift away from previous values and won’t come snapping back to equilibrium in a few days like water. We started pre-industrially with 280 ppm CO2 and are now at 400. Each extra molecule can absorb thermal IR photons and throw them in a randomized direction which means statistically half is back down to the ground and this is how it retains heat.
                      Now, did you read the paper from Nature you posted. It is behind a pay wall, so do you really have access? If you read this paper you would have your answer. When energy is retained in the climate system, it might go to warming the surface atmosphere, but it can also go into making the wind blow, making ice melt, heating the land, HEATING THE OCEANS! Over 90% of the retained energy is being retained in the oceans according to the paper you linked to. And so ocean oscillations can cause surface temperature to wiggle around as the increasing CO2 continues to capture heat. Does this help?

                    • Bodhisattva July 30, 2016 at 4:20 PM

                      I think it is appropriate to see where we agree and where we differ.

                      Typically I find that the atmosphere of the Earth is stated to consist of 78% nitrogen and 21% oxygen by volume. These values are rounded – nitrogen slightly down and oxygen slightly up. All the trace gasses fall within the final 1%. As you suggest, but in different words, some of the trace gasses (Ar, He, H were the examples you gave) are either not present in significant quantities or do not interact significantly with IR radiation to merit much discussion here. There are some gasses you did not mention, I’ll mention CH4 (methane) as one that alternately is mentioned as having an important role in the retention of heat by the atmosphere by some while others discount it’s role for various reasons, perhaps at their peril.

                      You will probably disagree (with part of my logic regarding the bolded part here) when I point out that the most abundant and perhaps most important trace gas is dihydrogen monoxide, or water vapor. It’s abundance varies both temporally and spatially. You might guess that it is most abundant near the equator and in the warm or wet places of the Earth and least abundant near the poles and the cold or dry places. Contrary to the myth, water vapor, not carbon dioxide, is the key greenhouse gas. One argument against this FACT is that water vapor continually cycles into and out of the atmosphere but this (latent heat exchange) is exactly why it is more significant in the uptake, transport/redistribution and both retention and eventual loss of heat. It, not carbon dioxide, plays the dominant role in determining the eventual temperature of the Earth overall from time to time and indeed from place to place as well.

                      A big deal is often made of the fact carbon dioxide has increased over the last 150 years or so by as much as 36% (or whatever the current number they’re using is) but this is typical misdirection since the change was from an insignificant 270 ppmv to an insignificant 400 ppmv.

                      So these two gasses (H2O and CO2 – and others as well) are called “greenhouse gasses” though as I’ve said, and I won’t belabor, this is a serious error and really should be rectified as it creates a lot of the misunderstanding that plagues this sort of discussion and kills any hope for progress and understanding – indeed if you ask anyone who is not well educated and even some that are, they will say there is a “layer” or that heat is “trapped” when neither is the case. Moving on. But doing so in a second post stating where I left off.

                    • Bodhisattva July 30, 2016 at 5:03 PM

                      What Arhennius showed in the late 1800’s was that though H2O caused most of that 30C warming, it could not drive climate change because it’s atmospheric concentration is tied to the oceans’ surface temperature.

                      This is exactly the sort of pretzel logic (your term) that prevents us from moving forward. You seem to me to be stipulating that most of the warming that makes the Earth habitable is caused by water vapor, but that water vapor cannot produce any more warming. Yet even the IPCC and those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism acknowledge that more CO2 will not significantly heat the Earth, just as the climate realists have said, for which they get falsely labeled as deniers FOR AGREEING WITH THE IPCC ON THIS NARROW POINT, but will allow water vapor to be more abundant and that water vapor will do the bulk of any actual heating that eventually occurs as CO2 rises. This is the whole “forcing/feedback” argument in a nutshell instead of the usual pretzel logic that is usually used.

                      And in a warming world we have seen in the past that the atmospheric CO2 and the temperature tend to move together as if one drives the other – a point often misrepresented by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism since, generally, what was inferred from various proxies was that temperature rises then CO2 rises, suggesting that the former drives the latter if there is a general cause-and-effect relationship – and this was clearly seen a number of times, at least 16 I believe. But it’s not that simple – these two things do not exist in a vacuum, there are other factors that play roles as well. Indeed we see at least two times I believe you mentioned (as opposed to 16 or so that I refer to here without listing them) that CO2 began to rise first, we believe, and temperature followed. Which, if the rising CO2 DID drive an increase in water vapor, would make sense. But which also could suggest other factors dominated these two times which are more the exception than the rule.

                      So do we measure, do we actually observe an increase in water vapor over the last several decades since this issue – the claim CO2 increase will drive a water vapor increase which will in turn cause catastrophic heating – was first said to be the most important crisis we face today?

                      We need to explore the carbon cycle, the relative contributions of that part of nature that is human and the rest of nature at some point, but perhaps not now. Now I will just point out that we’ve seen at least 16 times when temperature increased and CO2 followed. Is this a fair, accurate statement? And if you plot the Moberg et al., 2005 temperature increase on the same graph with the Law Dome CO2 record it appears that CO2 started rising nearly 100 years after the temperature started rising. I won’t base my conclusions on that alone – we need to explore further.

                      I do want to reiterate that, given the fact (says NOAA, not me, so if this is an issue, take it up with them, not me) that atmospheric CO2 has tended to rise and fall without any human help by 100+ ppmv over the past 400,000 years, multiple times, with the rise part of each sawtooth being somewhat dramatic, rapid, another myth told by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, the one that insists the slow, steady CO2 increase we are observing now is somehow unprecedented, alarming and must be anthropogenic in nature, bites the dust.

                      http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/temperature-change.html

                    • Rick Lafford May 23, 2016 at 3:52 PM

                      Absolutely correct. But the atmosphere isn’t a lab experiment. Water vapor is by far the most powerful “greenhouse” gas. I believe data supports that a change in water vapor in the atmosphere of 1% would erase any effect of the increase in CO2 we have seen. As it is we can’t differentiate the effect of increased CO2 from naturally occurring climate change.

                    • CB May 23, 2016 at 4:12 PM

                      “Water vapor is by far the most powerful “greenhouse” gas.”

                      …is a well-known Climate Denier talking point!

                      It’s true, of course, but ignores the fact that water vapour is a multiplier of the warming effect of other greenhouse gasses.

                      “Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.”

                      http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html

                      To find out why talking points like the one you just regurgitated are false and misleading, try Skeptical Science:

                      SkepticalScience.com

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 4:44 PM

                      “Because governments have found the AGW issue favorable for their “extraordinary” agendas.” Denis Ables
                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/redistribute_ben_stein8217s_money/#comment-2691377103

                    • Rick Lafford May 23, 2016 at 3:46 PM

                      CB you really should spend more time studying climate science that making meaningless comments on climate sites.

                      Sound science is not a product of where the money comes from but of the integrity and dedication of the people performing it. If you stuck on who finances what then consider that almost all the proponents of man-made climate change are financed by government or businesses that would benefit in some way from wind, solar or taxes on CO2.

                      Try http://wattsupwiththat.com/ if you want to learn more about climate science – not propaganda.

                    • Bodhisattva July 29, 2016 at 6:14 PM

                      Most of CB’s comments are direct cut and paste bits from one particular leftist site that is full of lies, propaganda and talking points.

                      They cannot argue against the science so they use all forms of attacks against us for posting the truth and our sources for giving the facts to us. This is all hand waving and obvious refusal to enter into a reasonable, honest discussion of the facts.

                      I see your post is 2 months old, so I won’t expect any response.

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 2:14 PM

                      That site, as well as this one are paid by the fossil fuel industry to lie about the dangerous nature of their product.

                      You might be able to claim you’re not a hypocrite if you didn’t depend on fossil fuels and their many derivative products DAILY.

                      However, you do, so you’re just another lunatic leftist hypocrite.

                      There’s nothing wrong with taking money to tell the truth. Unlike your sources (Who do you think funds THEM?) CFACT tells the truth.

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 11:21 PM

                      One of the worst arguments ever is the “because you use fossil fuels you can’t argue against it”. When the cultural infrastructure has been set one way, there is tremendous inertia to moving it to a another source and delivery platform. If there are good reasons to do this, then those that realize it must speak out, even while they live in that cultural milieu. We can ride our bikes and conserve energy where we can, but can’t escape the government subsidized industry, until we unite and realize that moving away from carbon based industry is wise on so many levels. At the very least remove the monetary incentives from all forms of energy and let them compete equally. History says we should probably subsidize alternative sources and invest in R&D until the best solutions pan out.

                    • Bodhisattva July 29, 2016 at 5:50 PM

                      WOW, you know, at last maybe we’re getting somewhere.

                      One of the worst arguments ever is the “because you use fossil fuels you can’t argue against it”.

                      That is your argument, not mine, and I agree it is silly, “pretzel logic”.

                      The argument I’ve presented that is apparently not expressed in the terms you need to understand it, which you’ve clearly misinterpreted, is that the people who claim WE need to cut down OUR fossil fuel use (and, curiously, are the same people who RAIL against the rich, among other things, though they’ve done nothing but use this to enrich themselves) are the same ones who have done nothing but INCREASE their fossil fuel use. I have never argued that you have to cease all fossil fuel use in order to argue that we can do better. The only question is whether you misrepresent me because I failed to express myself in words and ways you could understand or you let your hatred and contempt for anyone who dares disagree with your own chosen dogma blind you to what I’m trying to say.

                      I think we were once on a potential path to getting off fossil fuels but then the same people who are against them are also against any reasonable, viable short-term alternative – chief among these being nuclear. Yes, the early designs of nuclear plants were often inadequate and also poorly sited, but to be realistic nuclear energy is an important part of any mix that will get us off fossil fuels in the short term. This was even admitted recently by some on your side of this debate – and they were viciously attacked for admitting it. I wish I had the exact reference handy – I will try to find and present it. My recollection is it was Hansen from NASA/GISS that said we have to reconsider nuclear energy – but I could be mistaken. I will come back to this topic later perhaps.

                      The problem, one problem anyway, with the usual alternatives is they are not “always available”. Solar only works when the sun shines, wind turbine generators only work when the wind blows. Plus they usually draw the usual NIMBY responses which delay them, drive the costs up or flat out prevent them from being implemented. Finally when the battle to stop the construction of the power generation capability is lost the NIMBYs switch to opposing the infrastructure needed to get that power to market – see attempts to prevent development of geothermal fields in the Brawley Seismic Zone by opposing the Sunrise Powerlink, an effort that ultimately failed but did manage to significantly increase the project cost, complexity and the area affected despite a chief complaint being environmental impact – their efforts to stop or delay the project massively multiplied the impacted area of the project.

                      When the cultural infrastructure has been set one way, there is tremendous inertia to moving it to a another source and delivery platform.

                      True, but often for quite valid reasons. Solar energy, frankly, is not mature – but it’s getting there. And there are efforts to create the sort of distributed solar systems that will in the long run be a valid way to reduce dependence on fossil fuels or other sources WHEN THE SUN IS SHINING. Improvements in battery technology or other storage methods (California uses excess power to pump water up high then uses it to generate hydroelectric power when the sun isn’t shining, though this is inefficient in the long run) may help bring solar into the mix in a meaningful way in our lifetime.

                      But solar and wind have drawbacks – whether it’s some lizard, some tortoise or the fact both tend to kill birds, these forms of energy generation have their valid and reasonable opposition, often from the same people demanding we get off fossil fuels.

                      And, so far, there is NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE of the actual probability of any impending catastrophe those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism keep saying is already here. Sheesh, since I was a little kid – no, strike that, SINCE BEFORE I WAS BORN – there have been people predicting gloom and doom (Paul Ehrlich, Rachel Carson, M. King Hubbert, James Hansen, Al Gore) but when you examine their claims – particularly their predictions which are already testable – you find they’ve failed or that there is no way that what they predict could come true as they claimed.

                      SO far, and I’ve presented the evidence and will again if you claim to have missed it – more CO2 and warmer temperatures prove to be overall GOOD FOR THE BIOSPHERE. Also GOOD FOR HUMAN CIVILIZATION. Is there any bad with the good? Well perhaps – but not anything like what is claimed by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

                      Take coral for instance – it seems you studied cave formations, not corals, but from what I’ve learned there have been repeated mass near extinction (if not outright full extinction) events of global coral repeatedly that are well documented, literally written into stone as it were. So yes, we are seeing some stresses in some corals in some places – but this isn’t anything that hasn’t happened before and claims “this time it’s different” fail when the evidence shows they’ve not only been stressed before, but have apparently all but disappeared from the oceans.

                      I think this post is long enough – if there are other points you made to address, I’ll do a 2nd reply.

                    • cshorey July 30, 2016 at 7:36 AM

                      Glad to know it isn’t your argument as it seemed to be when you said, “You might be able to claim you’re not a hypocrite if you didn’t depend on fossil fuels and their many derivative products DAILY.” Glad to know you don’t really mean what you say.

                    • Bodhisattva July 30, 2016 at 7:21 PM

                      Two of the key things that make it nearly impossible to have an honest, adult discussion with someone who is full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism is they constantly try to divert from ever achieving a meaningful exchange of information through ad hominem and straw man arguments.

                      Let’s compare what I said:

                      “You might be able to claim you’re not a hypocrite if you didn’t depend on fossil fuels and their many derivative products DAILY.”

                      and what YOU said:

                      “because you use fossil fuels you can’t argue against it”.

                      See how you disingenuously accused me of making YOUR ARGUMENT, which I never made?

                      You can argue against it all you wish – I never said you couldn’t. You’re deliberately misrepresenting, lying about, what I said. I simply pointed out THE FACT that when you are dependent on that which you claim we should rid ourselves of, and you have not rid yourself of it,you are a hypocrite. Kind of like an alcoholic telling me it’s time I stopped drinking (even though he doesn’t actually know I don’t drink anyway). You can do it, but you only make yourself look silly doing so. So stop lying – stop claiming I said you CAN’T argue something when you can argue whatever you want – but you’re making a hypocrite of yourself in the process, as noted.

                      Why is it there continues to be a strong streak of dishonesty in your posts? Why is your tactic to claim I made arguments that sprung from your mind, not mine? Why do you claim I think I have the right to tell you what arguments you can make? That’s a liberal tactic, not my tactic. They are the ones who try to villify anyone who makes a valid argument against them. “You must be on the payroll of those criminal fossil fuel producers!”. Scary thought, that.

                      I meant what I said. But that was a statement that is a simple truth, not the straw-man argument you presented. My ARGUMENT against those who are the primary advocates of cutting our throats by driving energy costs to ridiculous levels is that they all say WE need to cut down while they do exactly the opposite.

                      They demand OUR COUNTRY must pay dearly for fossil fuels and that money, THEY SAY, is to be ‘redistributed’ to the very countries where most of the CO2 emissions growth is going on.

                      Why is it that EVERY TREATY from Kyoto forward did not do A SINGLE THING to actually begin to curb CO2 emissions? Remember the part where we could continue to grow our emissions as long as we paid developing nations, where the bulk of the current CO2 emissions growth is occurring, for the right to do so? What sense did that make?

                      Did the Paris agreement put us on the road to reduced CO2?

                      No, it did not, although it was hailed as a huge success! Why?

                      I would like to see us move on to more exotic energy sources as well.

                      Unfortunately since before I was born they’ve been saying that fusion energy is about 50 years away, they’re saying that today and they probably will be saying that when I die. Hopefully a long time from now but you never know.

                      Anyway, I mentioned Hansen’s take on nuclear, for which even this champion, this poster child of the nonsense that is AGW alarmism was viciously attacked:

                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alrxqx_B34s

                      “I think that next-generation, safe nuclear power is an option which we need to develop. And it is being developed in many countries around the world. So if the United States declines to do that, we’re just going to suffer economically because other countries will take the lead in that technology.” – James Hansen

                      I’m still waiting for your take on that. Do you accept that if we are to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels we must dramatically increase nuclear and possibly hydroelectric as well? Or what? What do you propose we do to replace the lost “always available” generation capacity. California’s CO2 insanity has now led to rolling blackouts – liberals have managed to turn one of the biggest economies in the world into a basically third world type place where they can’t even reliably keep the power on!

                    • Bodhisattva July 29, 2016 at 6:02 PM

                      This post of yours suggests that, now that we’re actually perhaps making an effort to communicate effectively, we may actually share some important common ideas and goals despite our looming disagreements in other areas.

                      We can ride our bikes and conserve energy where we can, but can’t escape the government subsidized industry, until we unite and realize that moving away from carbon based industry is wise on so many levels.

                      This seems to be a popular view among people who think and believe as you do. Let me break it down:

                      We can ride our bikes and conserve energy where we can

                      Yes, and when those screaming the loudest about our need to do this stop riding around in private jets and fleets of SUVs and start practicing what they preach – and I’m not saying they have to give up ALL fossil fuels, mind you, but they just show an actual effort to walk the walk their preaching demands of us – maybe we’ll make some progress in that respect. I’ll have you know my daily driver is a hybrid and I ride a bike instead of drive whenever possible. Just so you know I practice what I preach, I’m not a hypocrite like so many on the other side of these issues.

                      we…can’t escape the government subsidized industry

                      Sorry, but what we saw under Obama was not any effort to bring this industry to maturity but rather HUGE political payoffs – company after company that was started by those who helped him get elected – then re-elected – received huge funding from the government… then promptly went bankrupt. Often they ended up seriously negatively impacting the environment – I remember one company destroyed their entire inventory because it was cheaper than to store or ship it until it could be put to use – how much fossil fuel energy (used to manufacture and ship the inventory in the first place) did that waste, how much potentially harmful waste did that put into a landfill somewhere?

                      I hear you arguing FOR subsidies but I am sure you are AGAINST any subsidies to fossil fuel companies – let me know when you’re ready to choose whether subsidies are good or bad and we can talk. I’m for ending ALL subsidies – all technologies need to compete on a level playing field – this would be the best way to encourage those who are backing technologies that need to be improved before they can compete to actually make an effort to reach that goal.

                      Which is what YOU said:

                      At the very least remove the monetary incentives from all forms of energy and let them compete equally.

                      This is nice – we actually agree on something. I suspect there are more points we agree on. But then you go against what you just said with:

                      History says we should probably subsidize alternative sources and invest in R&D until the best solutions pan out.

                      I am ALL FOR some help with R&D – but not with ANY subsidies. Once the technology is proven on a small scale it won’t need any subsidies – the market will see the value of investing in it, they will do so – and the Democrats will come in and penalize those who risked their money, confiscating enough of the profits they had every right to expect in the name of “economic justice” that their expected returns will become losses, often significant ones, and those investors will, in the future, seek to invest their money in places out of reach of the U.S. government so it won’t happen again – see how that works?

                    • cshorey July 30, 2016 at 7:34 AM

                      So in the end you seem to agree. No subsidies for any and let them compete on a fair basis. But do take the economic externalities into the price point. Wouldn’t you agree there as well?

                    • Bodhisattva July 30, 2016 at 5:49 PM

                      take the economic externalities into the price point.

                      No, I would not, since this is just code for doing exactly the opposite of what we seem to agree on – let each compete on a completely level playing field with no advantage or disadvantage through any sort of subsidies or other interference. When solar is mature enough to compete without “taking the economic externalities into the price point” then it will. Until then it won’t. Meanwhile, R&D baby!

                      Primarily because the “economic externalities” that you mention are basically the LIE that CO2 is POLLUTION that must be paid for and the LIE that more CO2 will lead to catastrophe – some say already has, in fact. This phrase is liberal code for blaming CO2 and it’s producers for things that are not caused by it. Take the claim we would have more frequent and much worse hurricanes – and yet how long has it been since a single major (CAT III or greater) hurricane has struck the U.S.? The global ACE (accumulated cyclone energy) index took quite a tumble – if our CO2 is causing catastrophic warming of the surface, air or oceans, how do you explain that?

                      This term is as phony (at least in this context) as terms like “economic justice” and “black lives matter” are in their contexts.

                      CO2 is not pollution, it’s PLANT FOOD.

                      More CO2 is GOOD FOR THE BIOSPHERE. Warmer times are GOOD FOR THE HUMAN RACE AND THE BIOSPHERE. If anything these facts should be seen as an ECONOMIC PLUS and ENCOURAGE us to use MORE CO2 producing fossil fuels and LESS solar and wind power.

                      This is what those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism won’t admit and/or don’t get.

                      And yet there has been an observed POSITIVE impact on the biosphere that still is denied (who are the deniers?) by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism – this impact has a high POSITIVE economic value:

                      http://m.phys.org/news/2013-07-greening-co2.html

                      http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/geophysics/science-carbon-dioxide-desert-greening-01209.html
                      http://principia-scientific.org/tag/us-geophysical-research-letters/
                      A new study, based on satellite observations, CSIRO, in collaboration with the Australian National University (ANU) reported that the rising levels of carbon dioxide have caused deserts to start greening and increased foliage cover by 11 percent from 1982-2010 across parts of the arid areas studied in Australia, North America, the Middle East and Africa.

                      http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=1804

                      http://epod.usra.edu/blog/2001/09/greening-in-the-northern-hemisphere.html

                      Those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism typically state what is the opposite of reality: They claim that deserts are expanding and getting worse, but the observed FACT is that CO2 fertilization is increasing maximum foliage cover across the globe’s warm, arid environments. Even the deserts are greening.

                      Also you are no doubt familiar with the concept of “polar amplification – the apparently observed (if we can trust those doing the observing – and experience shows doing so can be foolish) trend of more rapid heating of the higher latitudes, at least in the Northern Hemisphere, which actually makes sense, than the lower ones. The effect here is to make more land habitable, arable.

                      What I find is that those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism do point out that when change, which is INEVITABLE, occurs it is rarely all good – there is also bad that comes with it.

                      When they clubbed seals in Canada to prevent decimation of fisheries they were also making it harder for polar bears to find food, one of the REAL factors (not CO2) that caused specific polar bear populations to decline and may still be impacting them as the seal populations continue to recover.

                      If a lion is to live it’s prey must die. This is the way of the world. And if a human is to live it must exhale CO2. As do all animals. One way or another (fish, of course, don’t usually “exhale”, but they do require oxygen and do expel CO2 as a result). And even plants must continue to live and power their life functions during periods of darkness. The level of CO2 in the atmosphere may in fact be a proxy for how well life is doing on Earth and when it rises that may be a sign that life is doing well. That may be the TRUE interpretation of the observed CO2 increase!

                    • LTJ October 11, 2017 at 8:57 AM

                      “Yes, and when those screaming the loudest about our need to do this stop riding around in private jets and fleets of SUVs and start practicing what they preach…”

                      The voices of folks like Leonardo Di Caprio are no louder than those of us who cycle to work in good weather – but they are amplified by the mass media. How would you suggest we neutralize that effect?

                    • Bart_R May 19, 2016 at 11:23 AM

                      There are some 11,000+ new peer reviewed scholarly works in climatology alone, and the Idsos scavenge material for their multiple disinformation sites from far more broadly than just climatology.

                      Further, it is a commonplace trick of the Idsos to cite a paper, but present the opposite of the paper’s conclusions in their summary. This secondhand interpretation is just more reason to avoid secondary interpretors.

                      What other plausible reason could there be for going to propagandists for support, than that one wants one’s propaganda predigested so its easier to swallow hook, line and sinker?

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 2:09 PM

                      “cshorey” apparently gets all his talking points from the usual leftist sites that are full of lies, talking points and propaganda just like “CB” does.

                      He keeps referring to Santer et. al. 2009 but cannot provide the title of the paper or a proper link to it, suggesting to me at least he has not seen or read the paper and does not know what it is about or what it actually says.

                      I think I know which of the several papers Santer co-authored (well, was included as a co-author, it’s likely he didn’t actually write much for any of them the way this works these days) he’s trying to refer to but I’m letting him twist in the wind and prove he doesn’t.

                      I’ve challenged him to provide the actual title or a valid link instead of a nebulous reference, the type of reference found on his typical choice of websites, which present distorted views of what is actually written, just like he does, which explains why they don’t want people who actually bother to read the stuff to be able to find what they claim are their sources.

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 11:28 PM

                      I don’t really go to “leftist sites”. That would be a waste of my time. I do come here though because of all the fascinating pretzel logic I find. Marc Marono is a truly dishonest and corrupt individual, and I’m interested in what he spawns into my world. I keep an eye on the climate deniers, because I have an active knowledge and interest in climate science, and I’m a father. What was that about ad hominem? Stop guessing about me and pigeonholing me and try taking to me.

                    • Bodhisattva July 29, 2016 at 5:25 PM

                      Well funny, what little information you have provided is basically word for word straight from the usual leftist sites that are known only for providing lies, talking points and propaganda for those who have no idea what they’re talking about.

                      As for your claim that

                      Marc Marono is a truly dishonest and corrupt individual”

                      Where to begin – either you don’t know how to spell his name properly – which indicates a lack of attention to detail that argues against any chance you’ve actually obtained a Ph.D. in ANY field, or you are once again engaging in childish ad hominem, which also tends to argue against you having the education you claim.

                      Furthermore the fact you made generic, unsupported complaints against him suggests you have no valid argument against anything he’s said, ever.

                      As far as pigeonholing you, is that what you call it when I point out you’ve claimed you have a degree in one field when in fact (assuming you are the actual Christian Shorey I found on line) you list your degree as being in quite another field – and pointing that out isn’t pigeonholing you, it’s simply recognizing a fundamental dishonest streak in you that you’ve demonstrated in other ways, perhaps even to the point of claiming to be “cshorey” when you are not really him.

                      I’m not “guessing” about you – I’m showing that what you claim here is not representative of the facts – and I’m finding that to be the case over and over.

                      You use the tired and false phrase “climate deniers” – exactly what is it you claim anyone who you use that phrase against is denying?

                      If you want me to “talk to you” I would be glad to – but if you continue to call me juvenile names, use terms like “denier” and simply disparage me and those who demand proof – not from models but from real world observations – and I’m not talking about the PROVEN fraudulent kind that have come from the U.K. Met Office (Jones), from Hansen over at NASA/GISS and from people like Karl (and whoever else was involved in falsifying THEIR data) at NOAA. Show me data that hasn’t been repeatedly and consistently manipulated to induce fraudulent (and indeed anthropogenic, in a sense) warming that only exists AFTER the data has been repeatedly adjusted to create it.

                      And show me science that existed BEFORE it became a prerequisite to success in climate disciplines to be willing to compromise the scientific method and your own personal honesty and integrity in order to avoid being constantly attacked, threatened and black listed.

                    • cshorey August 13, 2016 at 3:07 PM

                      Fourier, Tyndall, Langley, Arrhenius, Calendar, Suess, Ravelle, Keeling, Plass . . . seems I can think of a lot of scientists, who did lots of science you can now go educate yourself in, before “it became a prerequisite to success in climate disciplines to be willing to compromise scientific method . . . “. Oh wait, that permise is BS. No scientist gets fame and fortune by saying “I agree with everyone else”. As for your “proven” fraudulent claims, you must mean the quote ripped assumption of fraud that were found to not be true by 7 international commissions. You’re living in a fantasy land, and my making a typo on Mark, the truly dishonest, Morano, proves nothing but the fantasy in your head. We are quickly getting to a point where this discussion is scientifically beyond you and thus not worth pursuing further. Can you get back to the science or not?

                    • Bodhisattva August 14, 2016 at 4:29 PM

                      Tell you what – you stop giving me nonsense like the above (appeals to authority, etc.) to respond to and I will spend what little time I have on these issues talking about the science.

                      a lot of scientists

                      Oddly enough, the predictions based on their “science” – one that comes to mind being that we would see complete melting of the Arctic sea ice during summer by now – have mostly failed to come true. Real science makes predictions that come true. Ideologically driven science tends to make predictions that fail. Global warming alarmism predictions fairly consistently fail.

                      No scientist gets fame and fortune by saying “I agree with everyone else”.

                      Al Gore got a Nobel (but it wasn’t a SCIENCE prize) Prize for agreeing… but they give that one to terrorists as well so…

                      This is posed as the biggest issue of our time – and yet not one Nobel (science) Prize has been given out to anyone of the big names in this endeavor.

                      Actually a lot of people are getting a lot of press on this issue – a lot of fame, huge grants, not for saying “I agree with everyone else” but rather for constantly saying “WE’RE DOOMED”. I just wish they would join the Heaven’s Gate folks with that nonsense.

                      And those who DO NOT agree get punished, their works get shot down (so that the truth in them, which competes with AGW nonsense, won’t come out) and they even get fired. Oh, and they get hauled into court, threatened with lawsuits and such, as we see going on right now.

                      you must mean the quote ripped assumption of fraud that were found to not be true by 7 international commissions.

                      Not sure what you’re talking about here. If it’s the various whitewashes done to save the reputations of certain institutions who had on their staffs people like Mann who’s works were PROVEN beyond ANY DOUBT to be a joke, or Jones, who fraudulently “adjusted” temperature records when they didn’t show enough warming… No number of whitewash commissions will change the fact that these things happened. Naturally they ‘did the right thing’ to save the individuals and organizations involved, ignoring their despicable actions for the greater good of AGW and the institutions involved, which stood to lose not only respect but, more important, millions or even billions in research grants.

                      Mark, the truly dishonest, Morano

                      You know, you keep impugning the guy but haven’t given a single valid example of anything he said that was deliberately dishonest – and I’ve caught you in at least 2 clear cut examples of dishonesty, so pot, stop calling the kettle black.

                      I did have a bit of fun when you said corrals – other than that I don’t recall giving you a hard time for any typos. I know, I probably shouldn’t have done that, but I was in a joking mood at the time – no excuse, just letting you know why I did it. I think everyone knows what you meant. And hopefully everyone knows I knew, too. Maybe go back there and make a comment if it means that much to you and I’ll say this there, too.

                    • Bodhisattva August 14, 2016 at 4:31 PM

                      Sure, if you stop talking all this other nonsense then I will stop responding to it and will be able to dedicate more of my scarce extra time to actually responding concerning science – but let’s give that a test right now:

                      Both the IPCC and a group of noted “climate scientists” (and I use that term loosely, given how they tend to have a very loose definition of what is one when it comes to someone who supports AGW but a very strict one when it comes to someone who does not) have admitted, in no uncertain terms, that the rate of surface warming was GREATER when there was LESS CO2 and was LESSER when there was MORE CO2:

                      … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

                      SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

                      It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

                      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

                    • Bodhisattva July 29, 2016 at 5:27 PM

                      A quote from the above article, with one slight change, is extremely appropriate as a more direct response than the longer one I gave below:

                      If you learn anything, Chris Shorey, how about this: If you insist on insulting the intelligence of one entire side of a public policy debate in order to silence them, be prepared to hurt some very fine and credible people; including people you know, respect, and care about. That’s “insane.”

                    • cshorey July 29, 2016 at 6:51 PM

                      You really are opaque sometimes. Can you drift it back to climate at all?

                    • Denis Ables May 11, 2016 at 2:47 PM

                      I can see your rabid belief. Why would I bother to read anything you recommend. In fact, what is a “PAGES” study?

                    • cshorey May 11, 2016 at 3:44 PM

                      Try Googling “paleoclimate PAGES”. This isn’t hard.

                    • Denis Ables May 11, 2016 at 4:27 PM

                      In your own words. If you’re not capable to describing it, you don’t understand.

                    • cshorey May 11, 2016 at 7:00 PM

                      Really, after I already described this to you as a comprehensive overview of paleoclimate data. So is this admission that Googling “paleoclimate PAGES” is too hard for you?

                    • Denis Ables May 11, 2016 at 9:59 PM

                      I repeat… don’t waste readers time by attempting to chase them around the web. My goodness, such a rabid believer and yet you can’t put into your own words an argument for why you’re such an avid believer. Surely you have some empirical evidence, or something you can speak to?

                    • cshorey May 11, 2016 at 11:18 PM

                      Ok, you’re that stupidly lazy, or maybe I give you a break and note that their sever is currently down, here’s the wiki link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAGES

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 2:50 PM

                      Your cited source, the PAGES project, specifically states on it’s home page that it’s mission is to go back and revise established knowledge and to fraudulently change it to match what flawed climate models tell us we SHOULD believe, rather than what we actually observe.

                      Sorry, wrong, FAIL.

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 2:54 PM

                      Then you didn’t read it very well. Do you read?

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 3:13 PM

                      I read it word for word. Once again you prove you’re nothing but a DENIER. And a liar, too. From their home page (URL YOU GAVE after I already went there, so you can’t deny that I’ve got the right page.)

                      QUOTE:

                      PAGES is pleased to announce the launch of two new working groups.

                      DAPS – Paleoclimate Reanalyses

                      As usual, the result of the “reanalyses” will be revision of the data so that it more closely matches models, rather than the proper revision of the models so they more closely match the observed data.

                      We saw this with KARL 2015 – which was an attempt to claim the IPCC didn’t know what it was talking about here:

                      … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

                      SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

                      Of course KARL 2015 was quickly and thoroughly debunked by:

                      It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

                      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 2:24 PM

                      No, he does not. Or he would have provided it by now.

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 3:02 PM

                      That logic is so bad, where to begin. A paleoclimate synthesis is not at all what you are describing so you obviously can’t do this unless someone holds your hand, wipes your ass, and plants a link in your lazy lap: http://www.pages-igbp.org
                      And if you quote from their main site, try to be somewhere near reality, and don’t paraphrase in your paranoid delusional fantasies.

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 3:09 PM

                      Once again we see that cshorey is all about ad hominem and very short on facts, truth and logic.

                      Already been to the page. See my other post about it.

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 3:11 PM

                      Now that’s tired and says nothing. Here is your substance: try to figure out what PETM and post-Carboniferous ice age are and why they show that it is you that makes you look stupid, not my saying so.

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 3:25 PM

                      Why am I NOT surprised you left out any mention of the Late Ordovician Period – an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today?

                      (Here’s where you trot out some “revision” of all the previous science, a revision that denies it all and that says otherwise.)

                      So you claim that showing that there have been past events where temperatures rose dramatically that could not have been caused by humans (the Paleocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum) proves that the only time temperatures could possibly rise like they are now is because humans are causing it?

                      Come again?

                      Then you double down by referring to a period where, despite initially high CO2 levels, an ice age eventually began!

                      It’s interesting you would pick the time (Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time – 315 mya — 270 mya) that is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today.

                      And you ignore the FACT that, when CO2 was high during the Carboniferous period, contrary to the claims of you and your ilk, the world was a place full of life, much more alive than it is today in fact.

                      Your examples suggest we should do all we can to return to a period of higher atmospheric CO2 levels.

                      There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm — about 18 times higher than today. And even with CO2 nearly 5 and about 18 times higher, life managed to struggle on despite the claims of those who are full of
                      Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism that we’re doomed already and it’s already too late, all we can hope to do is limit the damage with CO2 still very close to record LOW levels.

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 10:53 PM

                      Already dealt with your two exceptions to the general rule – which only prove that there are many things that influence changes in temperature and CO2 and they don’t always move together, as the record clearly shows. Nice cherry picking, though.

                    • cshorey August 3, 2016 at 5:28 PM

                      If you call the Pleistocene “the general rule”. Did you have some other good examples besides the last ~2My of glacial interglacial cycles? How about the slide down to it, probably triggered (a la Maureen Raymo) by the uplift of the Himalayan plateau. So much silicate mineral being weathered means increased hydrolysis which removes CO2 from the atmosphere and the planet begins to dive down in temperature in response. That mechanism is over 30 My vs your 2 My “general rule”. Talk about the cherry picking.

                    • Bodhisattva August 6, 2016 at 3:59 PM

                      If you call the Pleistocene “the general rule”.

                      You seem to be calling it that. I merely pointed out that there were AT LEAST 16 times where temperature clearly rose first, followed by atmospheric CO2. I hadn’t gotten to the opposite – when things started dropping. I’ve also explained the obvious reason we would see this, based on well established physics you seem determined to ignore.

                      There are a number of things that interact – I’m not saying that coincidence proves causation, I leave that to those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism and they’re all too eager to oblige.

                      You do understand, apparently, the role played by significant geologic (tectonic) changes. All of the other changes that play a role can tend to make it hard to see the effect of a single piece of the puzzle, that much I hope we can agree. But there is no doubt that an increase in the temperature of the oceans tends to make CO2 less soluble – is there? Do you suggest that’s not the case? Do you believe that the atmosphere is a greater reservoir of CO2 or are the oceans the greater reservoir? Likewise, as the temperature does “dive down”, the oceans would be able to hold more CO2 in solution. This is not rocket science, it’s Henry’s Law.

                    • cshorey August 8, 2016 at 11:17 AM

                      Just went back through the thread to confirm you didn’t mention “16 times” before, nor have you elucidated them more here. I am still going to have to assume you are speaking of the Milankovitch cycle driven glacial/interglacial cycles of the Pleistocene which started at a 41 Ky cycle until about 1.5 My when it switched to 100 Ky. There are about 16 or so total swings in there, which have a solar driven T increase first followed by greenhouse gas feedbacks. Your vagueness in paleoclimatology makes me have to assume you are stuck in the Pleistocene for your “general rule”. As for the solubility of CO2, you are absolutely right, though you miss that hotter worlds are wetter worlds which lead to more wetlands that emit more CH4, that converts to CO2 in the atmosphere. You also get the thawing of permafrost kicking both those gasses out as well. So your discussion on this matter, though true, is incomplete, and then misses the crucial point that CO2 can be both a climate driver AND a feedback in the climate system. You just got the second half and seem to think the former is just through correlation being assumed as causation. No, it’s evidential through the work of Tyndall and Langley in the 1800’s and the U.S. Air Force working on heat seeking missile technology in the 1950’s. We know CO2 allows transmission of visible light and absorbs in the thermal IR in a way that is not redundant with H2O, and can thus retain thermal IR in the lower atmosphere. Thus CO2 can be a climate driver as well. After all, if you’re “general rule” is true, then we are currently living in a non-analog situation by default. We have observed a rise in CO2 first followed by the T increase over the last 150 years. And there is no such thing as rocket science. There’s physics and engineering. But that’s another discussion.

                    • cshorey August 13, 2016 at 3:11 PM

                      Explain why a Milankovitch driven warming, which should operate as a see saw pole to pole or pole to equator according to Milankovitch, instead has a uniform global signature of warming and cooling? You point out the solubility of CO2 with regard to sea temperature. You should be able to piece it together now that such a feedback would exactly give you a global signal even from a mere shift in solar energy without significant increase nor decrease in incoming radiation globally. Huh, CO2 has T control even in the cases where you think it is merely following passively with little affect. Do you see that you only discuss portions of this science and leave out huge portions of the system to come the conclusions you reach? You need to do a lot more studying before you can debate this competently.

                    • Bodhisattva August 14, 2016 at 4:10 PM

                      Thank you for explaining why we are currently seeing a see-saw pole to pole effect – as at the south pole we see an accumulation of ice and snow and record after record set for MAXIMUM EXTENT of sea ice (with a few years where they don’t set new records in between) even as we see the northern ice dwindling.

                      Odd, though, that those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism concentrate on just the melting that is happening at the north pole for the most part and don’t mention what’s happening at the south – more ice and snow than before – and when they do bother to mention it they note that it’s on the decaying side of the curve.

                      http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20120013495.pdf

                      Antarctic levels are confounding the world’s most trusted climate models with record highs for the third year running.

                      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/oct/09/why-is-antarctic-sea-ice-at-record-levels-despite-global-warming

                      Antarctic ice floes extended further than ever recorded this southern winter, confounding the world’s most-trusted climate models.

                      “It’s not expected,” says Professor John Turner, a climate expert at the British Antarctic Survey. “The world’s best 50 models were run and 95% of them have Antarctic sea ice decreasing over the past 30 years.”

                      The winter ice around the southern continent has been growing relatively constantly since records began in 1979. The US National Snow and Ice Data Centre (NSIDC), which monitors sea ice using satellite data, said this week that the year’s maximum was 1.54m sq km (595,000 sq miles) above the 1981-2010 average. The past three winters have all produced record levels of ice.

                    • cshorey August 14, 2016 at 4:28 PM

                      I have not even started to explain the difference between the poles currently, and the fact you think a discussion on Milankovitch forcing would be the explanation is yet another example of the lack of knowledge you have which makes it near impossible for you to discuss this intelligently. Guy Calendar predicted in 1938 that greenhouse gas forcing would cause the interior of Antarctica to gain ice, and eventually the edges would start melting first. The edge melt was first measured in 2008. Now figure this one out. What freezes more easily, salt water or fresh water? Which is less dense and would stay at the surface? If you understand this system, you will see that increased melting of the edges of Antarctica leads to more sea ice forming around Antarctica. We climate scientists do not ignore this, and even see changes in Atlantic winds that help Antarctic sea ice get even bigger. Those changes in wind are climate change related. So once again you brought up a subject (for the wrong reasons showing a lack of knowledge there) and couldn’t manage a full discussion, only a cherry picked portion that tells your science denial story. We are quickly approaching an end to our discussion as you have shown no ability to learn.

                    • Bodhisattva August 16, 2016 at 12:31 AM

                      Sigh…

                      You’re so desperate to turn this into something that’s all about me and how ignorant I am. Do you really have such a low opinion of yourself that you need to constantly crow about how much smarter than me you are?

                      First, YOU brought up Milankovitch forcing.

                      Second, it is widely agreed that Milakovitch forcing is one of several things that causes climate change – or are you and your ilk getting ready to deny that, too?

                      Did Guy Calendar also predict that the Antarctic would set multiple year over year maximum sea ice records?

                      Yes, I understand how you and your ilk are desperate to explain away the fact that snow and ice are accumulating in the south – but why isn’t all that melting ice and snow doing the same thing around Greenland and in the Arctic Ocean? You’re missing something really important here.

                      And since you brought up changes in wind… it is also understood that part of what is going on at the North Pole has to do with… CHANGES IN WIND! Or didn’t you know that?

                      It seems you only know, or at least you only admit to knowing, those things which reinforce your failed ideas.

                      I don’t think you even understand my position – you keep saying I’m saying things I never did. I agree this isn’t really going anywhere productive – at least not as long as you’re telling me what I think, all the while only proving who wrong you are about that, too!

                    • cshorey August 16, 2016 at 3:36 PM

                      Oh dear Avidyasattva,
                      Perhaps it would help you to know that I don’t want to constantly correct you and show where you’ve gone wrong. I’d much rather see you understand the science, complicated though it is, at a rudimentary level at least. I had hope for you in the beginning because you seemed able to find sources and at least try to read them, which better than most CFACT adherents.
                      First, I brought up Milankovitch forcing, so of course I don’t deny it. I just used it to explain that even with a see-saw forcer, we get a uniform global signal of climate change. We have to invoke greenhouse gas feedbacks to do that. That will be the second time I’ve explained that to you (you clearly missed the point above).
                      Second, why would I deny Milankovitch forcing? Unlike you, I am willing to consider the full effect of each of the major forcing agents INCLUDING human induced greenhouse gas forcing. It is you that have denied the importance of one of the major forcers (against the conclusions of scientific experts).
                      Third, Guy Calendar did not postulate on sea ice, only land based glacial ice. I note you don’t deny that he made the prediction, good, and you don’t deny that a warming world will make Antarctic ice grow, also good. Keep that up and you’ll be getting the idea. Warmer air can hold more water and precipitate more moisture so if you go from way below freezing to less below freezing, it snows more. That’s basic meteorology and the reason for the saying “too cold to snow”.
                      Fourth, you seem to want to make the north and south poles equivalent when they clearly aren’t. You ask why in the south when not in the north. Well . . . the north is an ocean surrounded by land, the south is land surrounded by ocean. This leads to varied complex ocean and atmospheric dynamics in the north which vary greatly seasonally. The south has circumpolar vortices in both the atmosphere and ocean that block heat flow to the south pole year round. The north can have greater changes in sea ice area both seasonally and climatically, and thus a greater positive climate feedback. Will you deny any of this? Will you admit that it was not I that was “missing something really important here” as it was I that had to explain all of this to you? Your question itself assumed an inappropriate likeness that demonstrates lack of knowledge yet again.
                      I most certainly do not try to put words in your mouth, unless I am having to guess at your meaning as you don’t explain yourself well enough. You still have not told us any details on the 16 times T preceded CO2 despite having been asked for the details multiple times. If you don’t like being misunderstood, try being clearer with better details.

                    • Bodhisattva August 21, 2016 at 3:55 PM

                      You may notice I’ve had better things to do than respond to your posts lately and I’ll explain some of the reasons why:

                      Oh dear Avidyasattva,

                      Still acting like a kindergarten bully, thinking that by calling me names you will upset me, or perhaps that’s how you deal with your own ego issues – I really don’t know, or care.

                      Perhaps it would help you to know that I don’t want to constantly correct you and show where you’ve gone wrong. I’d much rather see you understand the science, complicated though it is, at a rudimentary level at least.

                      The problem is you both don’t have any clue what I DO understand and have failed, repeatedly, to pick up any clues from what I’ve posted.

                      I had hope for you in the beginning because you seemed able to find sources and at least try to read them, which is better than most CFACT adherents.

                      I am not a “CFACT adherent”. I don’t generally come or linger here. How I got here is another story, it involved a bit of randomness which is not relevant to any discussion we’re having.

                      First, I brought up Milankovitch forcing, so of course I don’t deny it. I just used it to explain that even with a see-saw forcer, we get a uniform global signal of climate change.

                      It seems, then, that you understand that the global signal is to some extent caused by FEEDBACKS due to EXTERNAL FORCINGS. Good, we’re finally getting somewhere.

                      We have to invoke greenhouse gas feedbacks to do that. That will be the second time I’ve explained that to you (you clearly missed the point above).

                      So you acknowledge, unlike most of those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, that the FORCING is EXTERNAL and the woefully misnamed “greenhouse” effect is a FEEDBACK.

                      Now I’m going to point out right here that you DO NOT seem to understand that I’ve consistently accepted this FEEDBACK, though I bristle at calling it a “greenhouse” because it’s physical processes are not the same as a greenhouse in any way and this is in fact how many are duped to believing something is happening when actual observations have PROVEN beyond ANY DOUBT it is not – though it has become common to call it that so other than point this out occasionally I don’t want to get bogged down in arguing over it.

                      Second, why would I deny Milankovitch forcing? Unlike you, I am willing to consider the full effect of each of the major forcing agents INCLUDING human induced greenhouse gas forcing.

                      Well I wish you would be consistent, because there you go again. In a previous phrase you admitted that “greenhouse” gasses were a feedback, now you’re trying to claim they’re a forcing. Please explain to me how CO2 produces heat. This should be interesting.

                      It is you that have denied the importance of one of the major forcers (against the conclusions of scientific experts).

                      There you go with another appeal to authority. These “experts” have been caught engaging in very unscientific activities, including falsifying data. I don’t care how many people who stood to lose respect and grant money whitewashed and proclaimed otherwise, the facts remain that there is a lot of ideology and precious little science that supports the RIDICULOUS idea that humans have usurped the vastly more powerful forces of nature that actually determine our weather, temperature and climate and are now a dominant factor there.

                      Third, Guy Calendar did not postulate on Antarctic sea ice, only land based glacial ice. I note you don’t deny that he made the prediction, good, and you don’t deny that a warming world will make Antarctic ice grow, also good.

                      You seem to be stuck on this “denial/denier” kick. I suggest you open your eyes to the fact that those who deny nature is still more powerful than man are the true deniers, not those who say we should value actual observations over computer model results which are known to be fatally flawed anyway. Not that I don’t value proper models – models play a large and important role in many aspects of science today.

                      Keep that up and you’ll be getting the idea. Warmer air can hold more water and precipitate more moisture so if you go from way below freezing to less below freezing, it snows more. That’s basic meteorology and the reason for the saying “too cold to snow”.

                      You’re preaching to the choir, but I do appreciate you acknowledging that I’ve got some things right instead of constantly acting as if I’m clueless, acting like you’re teaching me things I’ve already stated to you previously. While I admit I grew up where it rarely snowed (once every 10 years, essentially) I’ve been through blizzards in Denver and Philadelphia (and other places) and I do know the saying “too cold to snow”.

                      Fourth, you seem to want to make the north and south poles equivalent when they clearly aren’t. You ask why in the south when not in the north. Well . . . the north is an ocean surrounded by land, the south is land surrounded by ocean. This leads to varied complex ocean and atmospheric dynamics in the north which vary greatly seasonally. The south has circumpolar vortices in both the atmosphere and ocean that block heat flow to the south pole year round. The north can have greater changes in sea ice area both seasonally and climatically, and thus a greater positive climate feedback. Will you deny any of this? Will you admit that it was not I that was “missing something really important here” as it was I that had to explain all of this to you? Your question itself assumed an inappropriate likeness that demonstrates lack of knowledge yet again.

                      Back to the straw man arguments. My question was essentially a device and it worked. Let me highlight the key part of your answer, which I do appreciate, but which I already knew.

                      Here is the key part:

                      The north can have greater changes in sea ice area both seasonally and climatically, and thus a greater positive climate feedback.

                      Indeed, and while we know this is due to GEOGRAPHY, those of us who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism insist it is due to human influence. You seem to admit that there is nothing odd or unusual about rapid ice loss or ice gain at the north pole, both of which we’ve observed in the last several years.

                      I most certainly do not try to put words in your mouth,

                      And yet you keep doing it and keep responding as if I haven’t said things that I have said.

                      And I would like to get to more important things, like more discussion of the “TOA” imbalance or the many times temperature preceded (and essentially “forced”) atmospheric CO2 levels, but I tend to work these comments in LIFO fashion and all the recent ones you’re making are about other things.

                      But let’s cut to the chase on that. Right now, not in the past, because right now is what is most relevant – do you agree that a warming ocean would tend to release some of the CO2 dissolved in it, or do you claim that temperature does not have any such effect on the solubility of CO2 in the ocean?

                      This is a busy time for me. I have not forgotten you, but I have priorities – most important, other people who are willing to make progress without constantly engaging in petty nonsense such as “Avidyasattva”.

                      Seriously. What’s up with that?

                    • cshorey August 14, 2016 at 4:29 PM

                      And I can’t help but notice that you still haven’t managed to explain your “general rule”, and so I am left to conclude you don’t know what you’re talking about again.

                    • Bodhisattva August 16, 2016 at 12:23 AM

                      It’s logic like that which makes one question whether you actually earned a PhD at all…

                      I am not going to be baited into your circular arguments.

                      If you weren’t spewing so much nonsense like this I might have time to put together a carefully thought out response, but instead I’m busy pointing out how petulant and illogical your posts are.

                    • cshorey August 16, 2016 at 2:01 AM

                      Oh dear, now you’ve made several posts in a row that have nothing to do with climate science. You have reduced yourself to this verbal diarrhea in which the absence of an explanation of your “general rule” continues to prove you didn’t really know what you were talking about. Would you like to try and prove that assumption wrong by actually making a post of substance. Here is the substance for this post; one needs a minimum of 17 years of record to see a climate signal, so thanks for pointing out satellite data of cooling over the last two months as if you were discussing climate, when you were really discussing weather. That is a datum in many I’ve seen leading me to conclude you don’t understand this, and are incapable of learning past your science denier colored glasses. And now you’ve made yourself a PhD denier too. What’s the matter, can’t even trust the conclusions of your own attempted which hunt?

                    • Bodhisattva August 6, 2016 at 4:04 PM

                      Not sure how you claim that my admitting to exceptions to the general rules is “cherry picking” – I’m not denying or hiding that things don’t always happen the same way. Just pointing out that you using two examples to try to claim CO2 is the dominant factor ignores that there are 16 examples when that was not the case.

                      You seem stuck on claiming coincidence proves causation even when a much larger number of cases show it happened the other way – and then all of a sudden you seem to abandon the idea coincidence means causation.

                      Mind you, I would not doubt you think I’m saying that temperature rises will always be followed by CO2 rises and I’m not. I’m simply saying it happened that way a number of times and I’m still not claiming it always does, will or should.

                    • cshorey August 8, 2016 at 11:25 AM

                      Admitting the two “exceptions” in itself is cherry picking if you think about hydrolysis as the mechanism resolving the “faint young sun paradox”. That is a mechanism using CO2 to regulate T on the planet over billions of years. And you’re apparently hung up on the Pleistocene glacial/interglacial shifts to base your “general rule” to which CO2 as a driver is counted as an “exception to the rule”. I completely understand that you don’t comprehend that CO2 does drive T in a causal manner and thus CO2 can be both a driver and a feedback mechanism in the climate system. So now I’ve given you PETM, post-Carboniferous Ice House, Cenozoic cooling through Himalayan enhanced chemical weathering of silicates, and the long term regulation of planetary temperature through hydrolysis. Do you still call all this exceptions and merely a correlation of coinicidence? You won’t if you come to understand them.

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 3:58 PM

                      The quote I provided was a direct quote, though I will have to look and make sure I turned off the BOLD soon enough – I may not have. Here it is again.

                      PAGES is pleased to announce the launch of two new working groups.

                      DAPS – Paleoclimate Reanalyses

                      As with other examples (the desperate attempts to eliminate or belittle the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period, the KARL 2015 paper, the continual fraudulent re-adjustment of surface temperature data, the actual destruction of source data and careful elimination of any evidence or record of his efforts by Jones) what we see is people who are not necessarily part of a closely coordinated conspiracy, but who are all anti-science since they are adjusting the data to fit their desired conclusions.

                      That’s not how science works.

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 4:13 PM

                      You found DAPS, but your overview is nothing like what their goals are. They started out by combining all forms of paleoclimate data. The fact the MWP comes out as regional only confirms other studies. The fact you want to cling to MWP as something comparable to today is the really telling point. It says you’ve already guzzled the cool aid and are unable to see why your comments keep revealing your ignorance. Again, try direct quotes instead of paraphrasing with your added paranoid delusions.

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM

                      I’m not going to continue to watch you keep digging yourself in deeper. Yes, I found the exact quote where they admit their mission is to revise reality to match the models, revise truth to match what they wish it was instead of what it is.

                      Now go on to other topics and for God’s sake stop proving you have no valid arguments by slipping ad hominem into every post!

                      It’s amusing how you both admit to yet try to deny the MWP in this post. It appears you admit there was SOME warming but try to belittle it by only admitting to the validity of whatever proxies you’ve cherry picked that show (according to you, but as your own paper shows, there seems to be a lot of wishful thinking there) it was only regional, or maybe not all that dramatic, or whatever it is you choose to believe because it matches your world view.

                      Even your statements about times that (according to you) there were significant temperature excursions that (again, according to you) followed significant CO2 excursions only proves (IF and ONLY IF we stipulate your views on these things are correct – which is not established but which I will stipulate for purpose of this single argument) that significant climate change HAS occurred in the past without humans causing it.

                      This conclusion blows yet another of the major claims of people who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism to bits. For it establishes that significant changes in CO2 and temperature HAVE in fact occurred without humans being the cause – and your crowd insists that isn’t possible, hasn’t happened.

                      By the way, you do have a series of slides that shows sea levels rising by as much as 5.5 meters. Do you really believe that is likely, or even possible, over any really significant period of time? Have you read the recent papers suggesting that Antarctica is actually GAINING ice and snow, and has been for some time? Do you need me to provide an actual valid reference/citation/link, something you remain unable to do? Unable to do… despite the fact you claim to have a PhD and yet you are unable to provide a proper citation?

                    • Bodhisattva July 29, 2016 at 5:12 PM

                      In fact I don’t know what attempt to present a “climate synthesis” you’re talking about as I haven’t been able to get you to admit what your page is all about in the first place – basically it is clearly, once again, an attempt to get everyone singing from the same fraudulent piece of music as alluded to with THIS EXACT QUOTE FROM THE LINK YOU GAVE:

                      The PAGES (Past Global Changes) project is an international effort to coordinate and promote past global change research.

                      The key word is “coordinate” – mustn’t have anyone straying from the dogmatic view. They tried that approach when, for a time at least, they managed to pervert the peer-review system and prevent any papers that questioned their dogmatic beliefs form being accepted using a variety of dirty tricks, then gloated about their success among themselves, thinking it would never be made public in violation of existing laws.

                      Now go ahead, deny, deny, deny.

                      p.s. – I am also continuing to see exactly what, if anything, of any real value is available at the link you gave as time permits. I will cautiously, with the expectation I will find something, thank you for the link.

                      But I’m still waiting for a proper citation concerning the TOA energy imbalance paper that Santer seems to have failed to include in his C.V.

                    • cshorey August 3, 2016 at 5:05 PM

                      I’ll assume you’ll agree I messed up naming Santer on that paper, and that I’ve already given you the proper link. “Coordinate . . . research” in the sane world means taking teams in disparate areas, (e.g. tree ring archive specialists vs. ice cores, speleothems, corals, lake varves, sediment cores, glacial records, desert varnish, pack rat middens, . . . making the point about a diverse field that can be brought together . . . coordinated). So “coordinating” the research is not at all the same as dictating results. No scientist gets famous by saying “I agree with everyone else . . . despite my data!” That’s a laughable worldview. I will deny deny deny your crazy worldview. Thanks for that option.

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 11:21 PM

                      Well yes, “the logic is so bad”… that the PAGES study group had to keep going back as their paper underwent multiple revisions, major corrections then essentially the group was forced to publish a significant retraction of their former claims that pretty much refuted their most important claim about the non-existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age – the part about the recent 30 year warming being “unprecedented” and their admission there were precedents, at least two:

                      The original paper, including the list of various corrections published over the years:

                      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

                      The final MAJOR mea culpa:

                      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n12/full/ngeo2566.html

                      So much for PAGES…

                    • cshorey August 3, 2016 at 4:38 PM

                      What Mr. Frog says, “the group was forced to publish a significant retraction of their former claims that pretty much refuted their most important claim about the non-existence of the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age”.
                      And yet, when we actually read the original paper we find, “There were no globally synchronous multi-decadal warm or cold intervals that define a worldwide Medieval Warm Period or Little Ice Age, but all reconstructions show generally cold conditions between AD 1580 and 1880, punctuated in some regions by warm decades during the eighteenth century.” And when we read the corrections paper we find, “No major conclusions have been affected by the corrections made to the Arctic data set including the conclusion that, during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature among regions was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.” Now go back and see how Mr. Frog interpreted this again. In his world “No major conclusions have been affected” turned into “significant retraction of their former claims”. I’ve admitted when I was wrong and made correction. Seems you have to admit you took the exact opposite from these papers as what they really say. But congratulations in getting that far. I gave PAGES to Dennis to show that cherry picking data sets is insufficient and biased. He wanted to focus on boreholes a la Joanne Nova only. He could never find the PAGES studies, so you’re one up on him, for what that’s worth.

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 11:30 PM

                      Says the guy who’s comments are private and who has yet to give peep on what credentials he has to discuss this matter.

                    • Bodhisattva July 29, 2016 at 5:02 PM

                      I don’t claim to have ANY credentials – that’s why I present the SCIENCE from the IPCC and others – which, I note, you have yet to address other than the usual personal attacks against me and, for that matter, sites you think I referenced which I did not.

                      My profile is private primarily because I’ve been threatened and stalked by people who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism who openly call for violence and even murder to keep the truth from being told. You can always find me at various places – including the one listed on my profile. Keeping my profile private keeps the lunatic leftists from being able to follow me around and call me juvenile names like “Mr. Frog”, wasting my time and theirs by only showing how juvenile they are and how vacuous they know their arguments are.

                    • cshorey July 29, 2016 at 6:53 PM

                      Nope, I haven’t had time to address your Gish gallop of earlier. It has so much to correct. But we got stuck on evidence point #1 I gave you. Credit where credit due, I mistook my reference, and had to go back to original notes. Now that I found you the reference it is you who have not addressed it. So I see the ball in your court. Would you like now to admit that there is scientific literature pointing to an energy imbalance at the top of our atmosphere?

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 11:32 PM

                      Or I’m waiting to see if you guys are just trolls who ask me to do the simple legwork for you. I give enough for you guys to eventually find it, as you have shown, but then you turn around and accuse of not providing the info. Mr. Frog, tsk.

                    • Bodhisattva July 29, 2016 at 4:58 PM

                      You have not provided anything but a dubious and completely insufficient reference to a report that might not even exist and have stubbornly refused to provide a proper citation or link. I see you’ve bombed my one comment here with 3 replies. Each mostly ad hominem and juvenile name calling. Rest assured that when I have time I will review each of your comments and so far your comments don’t really deserve a reply because, as noted, they’re more of the same juvenile ad hominem. If you think calling me “Mr. Frog” does anything more than calls into question you’re who you say you are or your alleged Ph.D, which is already proven to be in a different field than you claimed, is about as worthless as the mail-order paper it’s probably printed on, you’re sadly mistaken.

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 2:23 PM

                      Try Googling “paleoclimate PAGES”. This isn’t hard.

                      Took your advice. Top result:

                      https://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/

                      Gee, what do you know – I did what you said and the top result refutes everything you typically say here & elsewhere!

                      Imagine that!

                      And thanks!

                      (Remember, this page came from YOUR suggestion – I only provide it because YOU SUGGESTED I google something and doing what YOU SUGGESTED returned this as the top result.)

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 2:38 PM

                      Thanks for proving you suck at this.

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 3:39 PM

                      So you’re blaming me for putting your phrase into a search engine – and posting the top result the search engine gave.

                      How does that prove anything about me?

                      I simply put YOUR PHRASE into a search engine and reported the result.

                      YOU, on the other hand, came back with all you got – ad hominem.

                      Got any valid, factual, honest, scientific arguments?

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 11:52 PM

                      Think I may have already answered this but, if not, thanks for proving you have nothing valid to put in a response. Why not address the things stated on the page that YOUR SUGGESTION returned as the top result when I searched on the term YOU PROVIDED!

                      https://wattsupwiththat.com/paleoclimate/

                      Are you able to address anything there?

                      Or, better yet, let’s start with the 1990 IPCC report – best to start at the beginning so we can see the fraud unfold.

                      http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_I/ipcc_far_wg_I_full_report.pdf

                      Review figure 7.1 on page 250 of the pdf file linked above, marked as page 202 on the actual page.

                      Right there where the IPCC admitted to the existence of both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age until they became “inconvenient truths” and had to be eliminated – fraudulently revised away into obscurity and non-existence.

                      And the Holocene Maximum – also referred to as “optimum” even though it was warmer than today AND, surprise, NO fossil fuels or SUVs to cause it! And what was the CO2 level then?

                    • Robert May 24, 2016 at 1:38 PM

                      That is a 3x #facepalm!

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 3:47 PM

                      QUOTE:

                      A person who decided at the end of their Geology BS to go into paleoclimatology, who then got a Ph.D. in paleoclimatology, and decided to become a science educator instead of a science researcher

                      Seems your PhD is in Geoscience – not paleoclimatology.

                      You going to deny this – or admit it?

                      Can’t help but catch you in lies with every post I fact-check.

                      As for your admission that you became an educator instead of actually putting your knowledge to the test by trying to get a job in the real world, there’s a saying I once heard that you just proved true:

                      Those who can, do.

                      Those who can’t do TEACH.

                      Perhaps this explains how the U.S. is in a state of decline. Many of those who teach are the people who’s education and beliefs are so flawed they can’t get REAL jobs, so they teach.

                      Like you.

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 3:52 PM

                      Seems I did a PhD on climate proxies of carbon and oxygen isotopes in a speleothem archive, which is what we call paleoclimate. Nice try again, and you seem awfully fascinated by my background for one who thinks they see nothing but ad hominem attacks at every turn. When a person says the PETM shows that your CO2 second proposition is shit, this is not at hominem. When you continue with such nonsense after being corrected, and I say you are not competent to discuss this intelligently, that is just at observation of your ability in this area. Your ability is shit.

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 10:14 PM

                      Seems I did a PhD on climate proxies of carbon and oxygen isotopes in a speleothem archive, which is what we call paleoclimate.

                      No, you list your PhD as follows:

                      University of Iowa, Ph.D. Geoscience 2002

                      Now if your degree was a Ph.D in Paleoclimate, why do you list it as a Ph.D in Geoscience? Are you lying on your official webpage there at the university or are you lying now?

                      I suspect you are lying now in order to try to bulk up your ‘authority’ in an attempt to engage in an appeal to authority.

                      I’m not “fascinated by your background”, I only looked you up once you made questionable claims about the degree you earned and, upon finding you list it as something completely different than what you claim it is here, sought further information as to why you would deliberately and continuously misrepresent the actual degree you earned, particularly after your disingenuous claims were revealed upon finding your faculty page at your place of employment.

                      http://inside.mines.edu/~cshorey/

                      Doing a couple research projects on speleothems does not make you an expert paleoclimatologist, though you might argue you know more than the average person about speleothems. For instance I doubt that the point you make in your research paper – that speleotherm characteristics are dependent on more than one factor, not just temperature – is something that the average person walking down the street would have heard. But given your displayed penchant for both concealing and outright falsifying information, just how much validity do you expect us to assign to your paper?

                      When a person says the PETM shows that your CO2 second proposition is shit, this is not at hominem.

                      I didn’t say it was.

                      You’re cherry picking two past periods and ignoring the rest because, of the 20 we’ve mentioned, only those two support your position and the others support mine. So the ratio is 1:9 in my favor – and you call my beliefs “shit”?

                      When you continue with such nonsense after being corrected, and I say you are not competent to discuss this intelligently, that is just at observation of your ability in this area.

                      It seems, as I mentioned before, you are unable to have a calm, logical discussion without becoming irrational and emotional, reverting to some level of behavior I last encountered somewhere between Kindergarten and the 2nd Grade.

                      Curse and belittle me all you want, claim doing so is not a personal attack if you think you’ll win any points with anyone by doing so. In your own research paper you point out that temperature is not the only thing that affects speleothem attributes.

                      Now about this “speleothem archive”, what that suggests is that you took data someone else gathered and stored and then re-evaluated it to reach your own conclusions. I only glanced at your paper but if I have time I will go back and take a look to determine, unless your paper does not reveal it, exactly how many data points in how many diverse areas of the globe you’ve reviewed and how your analysis compares with others who used similar (perhaps more comprehensive) data. I wonder what I might find once I get to that?

                      As for my ability being “SHIT”, I’m not the one claiming to have a Ph.D in paleoclimate when, in reality, I have a Ph.D in Geoscience! I’m actually pretty good at both the things I studied formally and those I studied informally, at least I can hold my own, except when those I’m talking to regress to pre-pubescent antics, at which time I generally have to take a break because I’m laughing too hard to think.

                    • cshorey August 8, 2016 at 2:55 PM

                      If I said I did my PhD in natural sciences, not social sciences, that would be true. If I said I did my PhD in geosciences, that would also be true. If I said I did my PhD in karst formations and processes, that also would be true. And if I say I did my PhD in paleoclimate reconstructions using speleothems, that too is true. But nice try.

                    • Bodhisattva August 9, 2016 at 2:16 PM

                      You have, I presume, a document which states what your degree actually is. Online you have a published page which states what your degree actually is, I presume, but at this point can I even be sure of that? And here in a less formal setting you claim your degree is something completely different and double down trying to justify claiming something that differs with what you claimed elsewhere and likely differs from what is officially documented. I really don’t care to have you continue to be disingenuous about this. Why not just drop it – there’s nothing to be gained by you continuing to justify your demonstrated deliberate deceptiveness and I don’t want to be involved in encouraging you to continue to say something that, according to what you’ve said elsewhere, simply is not true even though you continue to try to justify this behavior.

                    • cshorey August 9, 2016 at 2:23 PM

                      I have a thesis title for my PhD which is Modeling High Temporal Resolution Climatic Records Preserved in Speleothem Records. Seems like that says “Paleoclimate” pretty clearly. So if a document says PhD from the Dept of Geology, that in no way contradicts that my PhD was in paleoclimatology. But nice try again. If only you could twist definitions and boxes to your whim to make them say the opposite of what they are. I got my PhD in paleoclimotolgy, like it or not.

                    • Bodhisattva August 9, 2016 at 2:30 PM

                      Apparently having a PhD does not improve one’s lack of reading comprehension, cognitive reasoning skills or honesty – who knew?

                    • cshorey August 9, 2016 at 2:33 PM

                      That wasn’t very witty. Especially since you give no evidence to back it up. Like when I point out that the corrections to the PAGES record didn’t change any major conclusions, and you claimed it did. That seems like an actual example of a lack of reading comprehension. Try again, this time with some substance.

                    • Bodhisattva August 10, 2016 at 4:40 AM

                      You’re the only one suggesting this has anything to do with ‘wit’. So you’re claiming that erasing the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age “didn’t change any major conclusions”.

                      Right.

                      Is there any point in continuing this line of discussion in light of that obviously ridiculous claim?

                    • cshorey August 10, 2016 at 3:27 PM

                      Never claimed it has to do with wit, but experience and levels of knowledge in a particular field. I was asked my qualifications, I gave them. It is you that have spent an awkward amount of time on this matter already. I feel I’ve responded enough. Do you think you can return to the discussion on the science? Can you confirm that your 16 times CO2 led temperature which you have called the general rule is really talking about the glacial/interglacial periods of the Pleistocene? If not, can you be less vague about your data?

                    • Bodhisattva August 13, 2016 at 2:31 PM

                      Never claimed it has to do with wit

                      I find it difficult to try to have conversations with people who lie about what they said one or two comments up – for instance, in this case, when you brought “wit” into this conversation by opening your comment (see just above) thus:

                      That wasn’t very witty.

                    • cshorey August 13, 2016 at 2:57 PM

                      So you don’t understand that when I said your comment wasn’t very witty, I was not automatically claiming that having a PhD imbues one with wit, which you implied two comments up, and this is stupid. You are now wasting your time and mine. Are you unable to discuss the science any further? Let’s talk more about those 16 climate shifts where T led CO2. Can you elucidate what you meant or at least say my assumption that you mean the glacial/interglacial periods of the Pleistocene epoch is correct or not?

                    • Bodhisattva August 13, 2016 at 5:34 PM

                      You mean the ones that YOU keep suggesting occurred during the Pleistocene epoch? Do continue, I want to see where you’re going with this.

                      Just as I didn’t bring with into this – you did, they you denied it – I believe if you scour our comments you will find YOU brought the Pleistocene epoch into this, not me.

                    • cshorey August 13, 2016 at 5:44 PM

                      So you were unable to confirm what you were talking about. I brought the Pleistocene epoch into it because you were so damn vague. Apparently you still are. Can you confirm what you meant by the 16 examples? Can you see anything more solidly about it? Do you have enough knowledge to do so?

                    • Bodhisattva August 14, 2016 at 10:48 PM

                      I was not automatically claiming that having a PhD imbues one with wit, which you implied two comments up

                      Still stuck on that… and another straw man. No, as we’ve already PROVEN with DIRECT QUOTES I never said ANYTHING about “WIT” until YOU brought that into the conversation, nor did I imply anything about it – never even mentioned it, until you did.

                      I already discussed the science. I’m going to see if you responded, but it may be a little while before I get back to you because I’m still stuck dealing with your straw man arguments about “WIT”.

                    • cshorey August 14, 2016 at 10:57 PM

                      I’m beginning to realize that you don’t know when your attempts at science have been responded to. I feel you still have not responded to repeated inquiries for the 16 times you say temperature preceded carbon dioxide. What do you feel I have not responded to?

                    • Bodhisattva August 10, 2016 at 4:46 AM

                      “…a thesis title for my PhD which is Modeling High Temporal Resolution Climatic Records”

                      So basically it’s all a matter of interpretation – modeling – no actual measurement of any actual temperatures – somewhat similar to what’s going on with the TOA energy imbalance ESTIMATES, but that’s another discussion on another sub-thread. I would like to get to that one, but it seems you continue to say one thing here and another on your “official” page. And you don’t see how that indicates, actually PROVES, you’re not being honest on AT LEAST one of them. But at this point, it’s plain mentioning that is whipping a dead horse and only worth doing to see how long you will continue to say there’s nothing wrong with claiming you have a degree in one thing in one place but a degree in something else somewhere else.

                      As for “modeling” based on “proxies”, it’s odd, isn’t it, how when a set of proxies diverges from the (admittedly questionably adjusted) surface temperature data, suddenly excuses are made for why, but it is insisted those excuses don’t apply and don’t disqualify the part that seems to indicate what it is desired it SHOULD indicate, only the part that diverges from what is required to support one’s dubious beliefs.

                      Do you know what I’m talking about here?

                    • cshorey August 10, 2016 at 3:30 PM

                      I know you don’t know what you’re talking about here. Actual measurements of temperature, precipitation, sunlight, vegetation, humidity, topography, CO2 levels within and without the cave systems, measurements of actual growth rates, and actual isotopic incorporations. Once all that data was compiled, then I modeled the parameters to best estimate their relationships. This is how science is done, sorry you think it is the opposite of what it really is. Can you try to get back to discussion climate science as that is what this discussion is about?

                    • Bodhisattva August 13, 2016 at 6:43 PM

                      The problem is science (particularly “climate science”) has become less about truth and more about achieving political and ideological goals. And those who are most determined to achieve these goals have made it clear that doing so trumps honesty and the scientific method. Typically their efforts don’t involved going forward, “standing on the shoulders of giants”, but rather denying what is already established, in effect taking us backward and substituting what they want to be believed with what was already well established, then calling their version “settled science”, no longer subject to review, comment, criticism or correction.

                      I suspect this is why YOU introduced the Pleistocene epoch into our discussions and am relatively certain the reason has to do with Shakun et. al. (2012).

                      Yet another example of politically and ideologically driven revisionism presented as science.

                    • cshorey August 13, 2016 at 7:06 PM

                      Look, try to follow this. It was YOU that said there were 16 times T preceded CO2, and it is YOU that can’t seem to tell us when those were, leaving ME to guess WTF YOU mean. This will be about the fifth time I’ve asked you to elucidate what you meant, and you haven’t. I am being left with the conclusion that you can’t, which is in line with the limited knowledge you’ve shown about paleoclimatology. As for the politics, it wasn’t brought there by the scientists. The science is still good, and when you follow the money, you find fossil fuel money pouring in to places like ALEC or Heartland which intentionally make a science debate political. CO2 causing climate change isn’t a liberal nor conservative political idea at all. The perception of it being that should be examined though. Now, which times exactly did you mean when you said T preceded CO2 16 times?

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 1:56 PM

                      “cshorey” gave me a nebulous reference (Santer et. al. 2009) to an alleged study on TOA energy imbalance and refuses to give any link, any proper citation or even the title of the supposed study he’s referring to here.

                      I’ve given him specific links and proper citations.

                      He says he’s given you PAGES – which pages? The usual sites full of lies, propaganda and talking points they all run to in the end?

                      He claims “co2science is a website to cherry pick the story… It is not an independent, unbiased peer reviewed source”

                      Neither are any of the sources those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism typically provide.

                      I give them data straight from the IPCC and peer-reviewed sources and they keep going to some bogus blog on the web that is simply lies, propaganda and talking points.

                    • Denis Ables July 26, 2016 at 2:39 PM

                      I vaguely recall a reference to PAGES, but didn’t bother chasing it down, or perhaps couldn’t find it. Once I find that the alarmist refuses to even acknowledge the MWP was global and as warm, likely warmer than now, it’s a waste of time talking to them.

                      The other test is to point out that it’s moot, talking about temperature from the mid 1800s, because the only warming the alarmists have is constrained to one duration, namely 1975 to 1998. (They also DENY the two independent sources of satellite data, which is generally also in agreement with balloon data.)

                      This second argument needs no “peer-reviewed” study because our current warming began, BY DEFINITION, at the earliest bottom during the LIA, which puts it before the mid 1600s. That implies 200 years of NATURAL warming before co2 began increasing, but even the most rabid (“scientists”) acknowledge that it would have taken at least a century for co2 increase (at an avg 2ppmv per year) to attain a level where it could have even possibly had any impact on temperature measurement. That implies 300 years of NATURAL warming and brings us to about 1950. (But from the 40s to the early 70s was a mild cooling period, although the NASA/NOAA complex is busily revising history).

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 4:23 PM

                      You were too lazy to try. Typical of your efforts. Love your conspiracy theories. What other conspiracies do you buy into? Now the current warming, by definition, makes your statements look ignorant. Did the 40’s – 70’s cooling not tell you your 300 year trend theory is crap. What about the previous 300, and the previous 300 to that? They don’t fit your “last 300” theory. This is terrible as usual Denis.

                    • Denis Ables July 26, 2016 at 4:29 PM

                      No science here, just another true believer.

                      You’re even dumber than I thought. The 40s to the 70s was a MILD cooling (hardly comparble to the LIA). Are you saying that the LIA was not cooler than subsequent temperatures?

                      And, when you go back further, are you then saying that the MWP was not warmer than the LIA ? It’s your statements, you poor soul, which debunk you.

                      oops, Mann did that on his bogus hockey stick graph using data from those bristle cone pines which were not even reliable, but then he cherry-picked his sample besides.

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 4:33 PM

                      And I never said 40-70 was cooler than LIA did I? Where do your fantasies come from? I am saying that the MWP has been shown to not be warmer than today, and the rate of change is not comparable, and can be so only if you look at regional sections and ignore the globe. As for Dr. Mann, do you know how many studies independent of his have confirmed his findings? The fact you are still on Dr. Mann shows the cool aid drinker for who they are. Try reading actual science journals instead of JoAnne Nova blog site crap. That is not how science is done, and a Google search does not give yo expertise.

                    • Denis Ables July 26, 2016 at 4:38 PM

                      You don’t seem to even understand the implications of your earlier stupid statements, do you? I’m turning the dial on you….. not wasting any more time. Rant on, it’ll be boring for other readers, but you’ll love every minute….

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 4:41 PM

                      That’s as perfectly vacuous as I’ve come to expect from you Denis. Enjoy your cool aid.

                    • Bodhisattva August 3, 2016 at 12:20 AM

                      He was apparently referring to this:

                      http://pages-igbp.org/

                      What it appears to be is an effort to collect all the climate propaganda and talking points in a single place and to get everyone speaking with one voice as they eliminate (by any means necessary) any actual science due to the fact real science tends to refute the claims of those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

                      Part of this effort was to coordinate those who were working on eliminating the validity of any science that showed there was a Medieval Warm Period or a Little Ice Age and the chosen method was to show these were local, not global, events.

                      This resulted in a paper that was published:

                      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n5/abs/ngeo1797.html

                      Note their apparent goal here was to completely refute any other science so of course that was the conclusion they reached – as noted when they said, “Recent warming reversed the long-term cooling; during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.”

                      If you’ve really been watching this you know this is a recurring theme – it’s never warmed this fast or this much in X years previous.

                      Except it has.

                      At the same link, note all the times they’ve had to come back and admit significant errors in their work.

                      And the last link they give is a major mea culpa:

                      http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n12/full/ngeo2566.html

                      Here their conclusion changes to:

                      No major conclusions have been affected by the corrections made to the Arctic data set including the conclusion that, during the period AD 1971–2000, the area-weighted average reconstructed temperature among regions was higher than any other time in nearly 1,400 years.

                      So now instead of proving that the warming was unique on a global scale, they’re down to claiming the warming is unique in the Arctic only, which is also a dubious claim which no doubt would not stand rigorous scrutiny… but the important takeaway is they admit the current warming is really not unprecedented, but rather has 2 previous more significant precedents, all before humans were considered to be a primary driving factor:

                      The ranked order of the best estimate of temperature indicates that the warmest 30-year period is centred on AD 395. The period from 1941–1970 emerges as the second warmest 30-year period in the Arctic record, and 1971–2000 the third warmest, rather than the first and second warmest as reported in the original version.

                      They still are stuck trying to lie with their “No major conclusions have been affected” and yet they admit that the current warming is NOT unprecedented, it has two warmer precedents, as noted above.

                      And yet at the main PAGES page they are still collecting and the lies, propaganda and talking points, trying to serve as a central distribution point and paying so-called scientists to revise past “settled science” so that it no longer disputes their Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism.

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 3:03 PM

                      And you couldn’t find it. God you’re bad at this. Funny that all my science colleagues have no problem with such a reference but you call it “nebulous”. What is “nebulous” is your thought process.

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 3:41 PM

                      Actually as I mentioned to someone else in another post I found the paper you’re PROBABLY referring to but as with other things you’ve said it doesn’t say what you claim it says. Your stubborn refusal to provide a proper citation or even the title of the paper YOU are looking at looks more and more like you’re trying to hide it because you know it doesn’t say what you’re claiming and you’re afraid that if you actually provide it I will point that out.

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 3:53 PM

                      Then they didn’t find the right paper. When I talked to Santer, he agreed with what I said.

                    • Bodhisattva July 26, 2016 at 9:47 PM

                      And you still refuse to present a proper citation to this mysterious paper that Santer himself is apparently too embarrassed to list in his CV. When I provide a citation it’s not misleading or fraudulent. Why is it you ONLY provide references, not proper citations, that are misleading and fraudulent? Is it somehow tied to the fact you continue to have a degree in paleoclimate when, in all official circumstances, you admit your degree is actually in geoscience? Why would you misrepresent your degree? It seems that there is a common trait of deliberate misrepresentation of fact that is present among those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism. Is this just coincidence?

                    • cshorey July 26, 2016 at 10:45 PM

                      Oh bother. I went back in my notes and it was correspondence with Murphy. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105/full
                      But anyway, you seem to think that Geoscience and Paleoclimatology are somehow divorced fields, and that you’ve “caught me” in something. Glad I can give you a little credit to finding me when all these other CFACT contributors claim I’m hiding behind a mystery veil. Nonsense as you have proven. But you can now investigate my claim that my PhD was in paleoclimate proxies and regional paleoclimate reconstructions using speleothems. So I guess you can argue yourself either way you choose so you get the conclusion you want to start with.
                      But let’s step back and realize that you and I started when you claimed that I present no evidence. I then reposted a list of evidence and you jumped on the first reference that I flubbed but have corrected above for you. You then went on an anomaly hunting trip which is anathema to scientific method, and accuse me of lying and fabricating, but give no good evidence. Yep, I made a mistake with my first reference because it has been a while since I looked at that subject, but now that I spend time to look at it again I will say it with more force. There is a measured energy imbalance at the top of our atmosphere and unless you are going to throw out the first law of thermodynamics, you better address it. If you want honest discussion, you better be committed to it being on both sides. I have told no lies despite your perceptions.

                    • Bodhisattva July 29, 2016 at 8:12 PM

                      OK first I want to give you full credit not only for providing the link/reference but also for admitting to a relatively minor error, in the grander scheme of things. Further, I admit I was hammering you a bit too hard over this perhaps, but it turns out for good reason as it finally goaded you to stop believing you had provided an adequate reference when it is clear you hadn’t. It is rare for those, at least in my experience, to come clean even after they find they’ve made a mistake and so you deserve credit for not being part of that crowd.

                      Life intervenes – I have to go catch a sunset with some friends. When I get back I’ll take a look at this.

                      Thank you, sincerely, for digging up and providing the proper link.

                      As for the discussion of your degree – this has also been blown out of proportion. I accept you probably know a lot more about the specific area of geoscience that you wrote about in your dissertation that I did read and that is interesting and well presented. I’m not sure all your conclusions are fully supported, but I can’t say they aren’t, at this point either.

                      But that’s not the issue. You have a piece of paper or maybe a sheepskin or whatever somewhere that states the degree you actually received and you represent that degree online to be a geoscience degree yet here you claim otherwise. One or the other is untrue and you must admit that is a FACT. It has only become such a contentious point due to your repeated refusal to admit whatever document you have that actually names your degree apparently does not say what you claim your degree to be here or on line, or whatever.

                      In fact it is inconsequential towards this discussion, which as I think we both know involves a lot more than cave decorations or isotope ratios and reasonable conclusions we can draw from them – I am willing to suggest you know a lot more about both than I do.

                      But it goes towards being as precise and HONEST as we can with each other. From time to time you may catch me saying something that, due probably to ignorance, is incorrect. But it is unlikely you will EVER catch me telling you, deliberately, I have a degree in one field when in fact my degrees are in other fields, not that one.

                      Capisce?

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 12:29 AM

                      I have not forgotten about this.

                      But since the citation you give now is a tangle of references to other works, and seems to admit it is not, as you claim, simply a measured energy imbalance at the top of our atmosphere but rather another summary of other works that greatly depends on a lot of attribution, not simple measurements, also on estimates instead of actual measurements, I can’t see how you continue to make the claims you do.

                      We have simply not measured where every bit of the ESTIMATED energy incident upon the Earth goes. Claiming we have is simply not honest – and I suspect that a lot of that energy has gone to “storage” in the greening of the Earth, including the deserts, which is apparently not acknowledged by those who insist the opposite is happening.

                      That explosion of life didn’t happen without a lot of energy supporting it. Maybe you had better go back and check the figures, revise their estimates, or tell them to do so.

                      Because if their claims that there’s that much missing energy is true we WOULD be seeing more warming than we are, instead of the recent measured cooling:

                      Refer to the UAH global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for June, 2016, which is down 0.21 deg. C from the May value.

                      Also there has been a 2-month temperature decline of -0.37 deg. C, which is the second largest in the 37+ year satellite record.

                      http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 12:36 AM

                      Let me expand on what I said, above:

                      We have simply not ACCURATELY measured where every bit of the ESTIMATED energy incident upon the Earth goes.

                      Along with that, we have not ACCURATELY measured the actual amount of energy incident on the TOA – though we have some reasonably good estimates I suppose.

                      But our estimates on how much makes it to different depths of our atmosphere are somewhat less accurate.

                      And our estimates of where it goes – well I already addressed that, above.

                      Finally, our estimates of how much is going out do also have limitations.

                      One question (well a series of questions all rolled into one) to illustrate this: In our estimates of outgoing energy, how small are the grid squares actually measured for each estimate that goes into the total, what is the estimated error for each estimate of each grid square measured, and do the grid squares measured cover the entire Earth 24/7/365?

                      I suspect your answer, if it is honest and thoughtful, will be a lot less complicated than my question, based on the work you cited:

                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012105/full:

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 12:52 AM

                      Further evidence:

                      The IPCC predicted (at one time) a minimum of .30 degrees C warming per decade based on the claimed TOA energy imbalance. Yet UAH satellite data shows less than half that rate.

                      Undaunted, the IPCC nevertheless came back with a prediction in 1990 of between .15 and .30 degrees C per decade – and the rate since 1979 has averaged .12 C per decade.

                      Jones admitted some years back that all the short term warming trends from the mid 1800s were approximately .16 degrees C per decade… I do not have the reference handy but will try to find & present it.

                      The truth is we have not actually accurately measured the temperature of the Earth even once, let alone twice, with enough certainty to make really any of the claims that are being made by either side in this – we simply do not have the technology to make such claims with any authority.

                      Is the world warming?

                      Yes, I believe it is.

                      Is that a good thing or a bad thing?

                      I’m convinced it’s overall good, even though there may be some bad along with the good, as is ALWAYS the case with change.

                      Can we stop the warming, no matter what the cause (human or natural)?

                      No, not really. Change is inevitable and even if I’m completely wrong and humans have usurped nature and are now the primary force driving climate trends (really, that is the most ridiculous claim I’ve EVER heard of, even sillier than the “Earth is flat” and the “Earth is the center of the Universe” claims, though it actually quite closely resembles the latter as it is driven by the same belief that humans are much more important and powerful than they are in the grand scheme of things) I still submit that the evidence of a warming planet is overwhelmingly positive – whoever said the planet is already warm enough was lying.

                    • cshorey August 2, 2016 at 3:29 PM

                      “a tangle of references to other works”. Wow. I was wondering how you were going to manage to simply deny a peer reviewed paper. Too many references eh? How dare a science paper use references. So let’s leave it at, we have evidence of an energy balance at the top of our atmosphere, but you’d prefer to deny it. So if one has to take several variables into account and it is not a simple one to one measurement, then nothing can be measured in your world? I’m loosing the respect that keeps me in this conversation Mr. Frog.

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 6:26 PM

                      LOL! And the clear trend of dishonesty continues.

                      Maybe I was unclear so I’ll restate:

                      The paper you referenced requires me to carefully review it and a number of the papers it also refers to in order to provide any reasonable, thoughtful comment. If I were to rush to comment on simply first impressions of the initial paper alone I doubt my comments would be the same as what I might say once I make an attempt to more thoroughly understand the referenced paper and the additional references given by it.

                      I am not denying anything. Although right across the top – without an in-depth review, mind you, it appears: We have claims of an energy imbalance at the top of the atmosphere, we have not actually done anything more than some rough and insufficient measurements that result in an ESTIMATE of the total incident energy (which is not constant, by the way, yet the estimate acts as if it is) ESTIMATES of how much gets to the Earth’s surface, ESTIMATES of how much leaves the Earth’s surface, ESTIMATES of how much leaves the atmosphere and ESTIMATES of what happens to the missing energy.

                      We have not accurately measured any of those ESTIMATED things with enough precision, enough times, to actually claim we have a firm grasp of any actual TOA energy imbalance and even if we did, because I suppose there is likely one, so I’m biased towards believing it, the issue for me is finding where that missing energy is going.

                      People who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism have tried (and failed) to find it in the surface temperature trends. Recently they’ve claimed it’s hiding in the oceans but the evidence for that is also unconvincing.

                      The evidence I’ve seen, and that I’ve presented here, is that extra “missing” energy has gone into greening the biosphere – powering more life, at a time when those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism claim the opposite is occurring.

                      So in other words you continue to argue something that I may actually agree with – there may in fact BE a TOA energy imbalance, but that does not support your conclusion the only place it could possibly be going is global warming, because observations prove that is not the case.

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 6:27 PM

                      Oh, and RIBBET!

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 6:32 PM

                      “if one has to take several variables into account and it is not a simple one to one measurement, then nothing can be measured in your world?”

                      Straw man. I never said that. You did.

                      Things can be measured. The measurements to date on the quantities in question were used to make estimates. The claim of a TOA energy imbalance is based on ESTIMATES that are derived from measurements. It’s not really the alleged TOA imbalance that is the issue, since there are many ways to ATTRIBUTE the alleged imbalance to things other than the one those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism insist is the only possibility, despite clear and compelling evidence to the contrary.

                      Clearly, since the missing energy IS NOT going where it is claimed by those who are full of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Alarmism, somewhere one or more of the OTHER ESTIMATES (and possibly the measurements that form a basis for same) are incorrect.

                      This is a classic case of failure to adequately check one’s work, perhaps motivated by a desire to leap to an attractive, yet clearly false, conclusion.

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 6:47 PM

                      After writing this I should note the next month’s anomaly was published (or I found it after, anyway, not sure exactly when it was published) and there’s been a SLIGHT rebound so the streak stops at 2 months, the anomaly is still WAY DOWN and it’s unlikely we will see any ‘hottest ever’ record for 2016 even with the slight July rebound.

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 6:45 PM

                      To be fair, cshorey did find the paper he was thinking of, it was not by Santer, he did provide a good reference eventually.

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 6:44 PM

                      I need to update this to point out cshorey admitted his mistake and did provide a reference to a completely different paper eventually.

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 11:16 PM

                      I do want to reiterate I give you lots of credit for eventually coming clean when you realized you gave me the wrong reference – to a paper that didn’t exist – and you then provided the right reference. In my experience it’s rare for people who argue your side of these issues to EVER come clean and admit they made ANY mistake so you deserve full credit for doing so. I continue to review the reference and the many additional references to other papers it provided so I can give a sensible, rather than a hasty, response but as I have said the issue is not so much whether or not there is a TOA imbalance, but where any missing energy is going, because observations show the allegedly missing energy hasn’t been heating the surface:

                      … the rate of warming over the past 15 years (1998–2012; 0.05 [–0.05 to 0.15] °C per decade) … is smaller than the rate calculated since 1951 (1951–2012; 0.12 [0.08 to 0.14] °C per decade).

                      SOURCE: https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/SYR_AR5_FINAL_full.pdf (page 2, bottom, is where it starts)

                      It has been claimed that the early-2000s global warming slowdown characterized by a reduced rate of global surface warming, has been overstated, lacks sound scientific basis, or is unsupported by observations. The evidence presented here contradicts these claims. A large body of scientific evidence — amassed before and since the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change indicates that the surface warming slowdown, also sometimes referred to in the literature as the hiatus, was due to the combined effects of internal decadal variability and natural forcing.

                      http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v6/n3/full/nclimate2938.html

                    • Bodhisattva August 2, 2016 at 6:43 PM

                      I should mention that cshorey came through with a different reference. Nobody’s perfect – he simply made a mistake and he’s now rectified it.

                  • David Kledzik May 11, 2016 at 3:51 PM

                    Give it up already, he schooled you.

                    • cshorey May 11, 2016 at 6:45 PM

                      That would take teaching me something I didn’t know. And why would I give it up. I love stirring this hornet’s nest and watch the foaming at the mouth and the pithy quotes like your last post.

                    • David Kledzik May 11, 2016 at 7:46 PM

                      LMAO!!!!!

                    • cshorey May 11, 2016 at 7:47 PM

                      I know, it’s about all you’re capable of.

                    • bs7sden May 12, 2016 at 9:56 AM

                      We can explain it for you, but can’t understand it for [email protected]:disqus

                    • cshorey May 12, 2016 at 10:43 PM

                      Actually I have a PhD in paleoclimatology. Nice try.

                    • Denis Ables May 13, 2016 at 11:03 AM

                      You should have focused more on “scientific method”, or perhaps even a decent course in Logic.

                    • cshorey May 14, 2016 at 2:46 PM

                      Try to stay on topic.

                    • Denis Ables May 14, 2016 at 2:50 PM

                      It seemed (and still does) relevant. I was merely suggesting that perhaps you should have expanded your education beyond your little branchlet of climate science. After all, there has to be some reason why you cannot produce evidence to support your rabid belief.

                    • Bart_R May 19, 2016 at 11:26 AM

                      Before the method of science came the philosophy. Applying the method mindlessly without grasping the logic behind it is poor science indeed:

                      “Hold exact claims inferred from all we note assuming least, excepting least and linking by logic like parts of like things most possible (but no further than possible*) until new note need amended or new claim — Isaac Newton, Philosophia 1714, *amended Albert Einstein 1914.”

                      By all means, let us know what constitutes a decent course in Logic to your mind.

                    • Denis Ables May 19, 2016 at 12:24 PM

                      Right out of “1984”. Your bloviation reminds me of things like the “Department of Peace”. Ludicrous. Your cult refuses to even look at conflicting evidence.

                      I’ve seen no refutation of the fact that there is NO empirical evidence showing that co2 has EVER (even over geologic periods) had any impact on the planet’s temperature.

                      Al Gore showed you the way when he pointed out his graph showing a great relationship between co2 level and temperature. The only problem was he didn’t initially understand that it was temperature variation which happened FIRST, and very similar variations (tracking both up and down trends) in co2 level 800 to 2800 years LATER. This correlation implies that there is not even a correlation for the alarmists. Their hypothesis is implausible. What part of that logic do you not understand? When the data doesn’t support the theory, you’re in need of a new theory.

                      What part of that do you not understand?

                    • Bart_R May 19, 2016 at 12:34 PM

                      The empirical evidence for CO2’s impact on global temperature was first established in the 1950’s by Gilbert Plass (Canada) and Hubert Lamb (UK), following inquiries by Guy Stewart Callendar (UK) and the earlier work of Svante Arrhenius.

                      Your ad personam is simply invalid. The more you write, the more how wrong you are is clarified. And you write so very, very much.

                      There are now more than 11,000 new climatology papers in peer-review journals a year built on the works of Lamb and those who followed his footsteps, such as Charney, who established the parameters for ECS.

                      The test of science is refutation of previous claim. Refute those 11,000 claims from last year, and the ones from the prior year, and so on for six decades, and you’ll be worth noticing.

                      Until then, you’re simply not.
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2f4c9bcb88a3f6700be3f850b14d9321b7990380f6768aa1f990768c85ad523.png

                    • Denis Ables May 19, 2016 at 6:53 PM

                      Present the “evidence” by Plass and Lamb Don’t chase readers around the web.,

                      Claiming to “refute” `1,000+ peer-reviewed studies which, in aggregate, independently arrive at the conclusion that the MWP was a global event, and likely warmer than now, is ludicrous. You don’t know what you’re talking about.

                    • Bart_R May 19, 2016 at 7:05 PM

                      Disingenuous.

                      You want me to squeeze tens of thousands of peer-reviewed scholarly studies into a blog comment to show how absurdly huge your Big Lie is?

                      In the 1950’s, scientists were limited in the data they could bring to the problem, and estimated ECS in the range of 3.6C/doubling CO2.

                      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/abstract

                      With the best of the data we have available, we see that the actual ECS is considerably higher, around 5.0 +/- 0.3 C/doubling.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2f4c9bcb88a3f6700be3f850b14d9321b7990380f6768aa1f990768c85ad523.png

                      As for the mountains of evidence leading to these inferences, there were over 12,000 peer reviewed scholarly studies published in climatology in the last twelve months based on the foundation laid by Plass. If you want to dispute them, good luck.

                    • Denis Ables May 19, 2016 at 7:54 PM

                      You’re obviously joking (or smoking something strong)

                      Quite a number of the peer-reviewed studies on the MWP, which in aggregate show the MWP was global, are much more recent than the 1950s; in fact, there are usually a few new confirming studies added every month !

                      Each of these studies is from a different location, different scientists, different proxy temperature measurements.

                      What’s most amusing is that you believers are ignoring thje fact that both of our weather satellites show no additional warming since 1998. (There may be a caveat on 2015 because of the El Nino – which was “natural” as even NASA admitted, and substantial.) Last I read, not even the El Nino (which began before mid 2015 ) managed to cut into that 18 year record of no additinal warming.

                      And the 6,000 boreholes around the globe definitely show the MWP to have been a global event.

                      Actually, I douibt that this would trouble you if you actually believe that 1,000+ independent peer-reviewed studies (co2science.org provides links) have all been refuted. That’s ludicrous.

                    • Bart_R May 19, 2016 at 9:17 PM

                      CO2Science is an Idsos website. I haven’t been back to it in a few years, but its practice of misrepresenting the studies it cites is unlikely to have changed. Why go to a secondary source for interpretation when you can go to the original papers?

                      You have not argued Plass’s paper on its merits. You have not made any dispute that touches the graph presented in the least. Your MWP argument is dismantled by the PAGES 2K Consortium study showing that there was no synchronous 30-year or longer global temperature trend in the last 1,000 years prior to the effects Plass in the 1950’s found would lead to global warming lasting centuries.

                      Your arguments, where they are not merely echoing my own argument and turning them upside down and backwards dishonestly, are specious, where they are not outright lies.

                      Who raised you?

                    • Denis Ables May 19, 2016 at 9:27 PM

                      Idso may be a skeptic, but he has no control over all the folks out there who have done peer-reviewed studies on the MWP. Many of those studies were done BEFORE the new definition attached to “climate change”. All he does is provide links to the researchers, organizations, and their study.

                      No, I have not read Plass’s paper at all, and apparently you don’t understand it well enough to describe his process. Based on what else you’ve said it appears a waste of time to bother checking anything you say. It’s much easier to consider what YOU can say (presumably in your own words),

                      It is clear that quite3 a few of the co2science links go to studies done after the 1950s; in fact the studies continue to come in from various countries.

                      Separately, there are the 6,000 boreholes which easily show the MWP to be global. This confirms the peer-reviewed studies (which apparently generally have more accurate temperature assessments).

                      My arguments “mirror your own”?! God, I hope not. Yours make no sense.

                      Why do you believe that Plass et al have shown empirical evidence? That should be easy to answer.

                    • Bart_R May 19, 2016 at 11:36 PM

                      The Idsos hardly are skeptics. Merely they mechanically twist whatever they come across to a sort of perverse molecule-worship of CO2.

                      Cite specific studies, specific passages, instead of glittering generalities. Where are your 6,000 boreholes, exactly? What exactly is do they say?

                      Why do you continue to hop from topic to topic as the evidence of one shows you wrong, without acknowledging that you’ve been shown wrong?

                      “Hold exact claims inferred from all we note assuming least, excepting least and linking by logic like parts of like things most possible (but no further than possible*) until new note need amended or new claim — Isaac Newton, Philosophia 1714, *amended Albert Einstein 1914.”

                      That’s Plass’ process.

                      Let’s go back to http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1950ApJ…112..365S/0000365.000.html and have a look at how this claim by Plass developed by inference from all evidence:
                      Strong and Lamb calculated pressure broadening of wavebands for CO2 and detailed a radiation energy budget for the atmosphere in 1950. Their inferences successfully explained gross observations of the energy profile of the atmosphere for the first time. This is how the empirical evidence of spectroscopy in the lab and in the field were applied to found the field of climatology.

                      By http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.49708235307/abstract;jsessionid=78C19F9D1B9066E0998CBFFE956509DF.f04t02 half a decade later, Plass’ work with sponsorship of the US Navy was able to show, “The results for different carbon-dioxide concentrations indicate that the average temperature at the surface of the earth would rise by 3.6°C if the carbon-dioxide concentration were doubled and would fall by 3.8°C if the carbon-dioxide concentration were halved, on the assumption that nothing else changed to affect the radiation balance.” Plass did not fully account for feedbacks, nor did he have access to data we now know tells us the Charney ECS is closer to 5.0 +/- 0.3 C/decade. That’s from empirical evidence and pure inference given simplest underlying assumptions, greatest parsimony of exception, and like logic of like parts of like things.

                      By http://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/27859450.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents less than a full decade from the first paper on the topic, Plass’ work had withstood all challenges of the peer-review process, of publication, of study and attempts to refute and had come through with the short of amendments of any successful scientific claim, and was the solid foundation of what we know now as the underpinnings of climate science.

                      In ensuing years, Plass’ work like http://oai.dtic.mil/oai/oai?verb=getRecord&metadataPrefix=html&identifier=AD0415207 and http://scitation.aip.org/content/aip/journal/jcp/37/7/10.1063/1.1733302 gave far more detail to flesh out the exact calculations, and the works of Lamb and others began to form the field of climatology in earnest. Others like http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/JZ069i008p01663/full were fully involved in the discourse, and by the time of http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es60067a007 pretty much the whole of the science was established in empirical evidence by inference, before the first of the GCMs were devised.

                      Your weird narrative of the ‘evolution’ of climate change phrasing is simply silly. Hubert Lamb in the 1950’s coined or provided formalism for ‘climate change’, ‘anthropogenic global warming’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’, the ‘Little Ice Age’. These aren’t newly evolving terms at all. You are simply a conspiracy theorist repeating propaganda.

                      Here’s some anodyne: http://www.americanscientist.org/libraries/documents/20091204151213x3i62jruvx/20091241543137606-2010-01Plass.pdf

                      Now, try to address these points, instead of just conjuring Idsos.

                    • Denis Ables May 20, 2016 at 8:23 AM

                      I have not been proven wrong. The “co2 doubling” does not take into consideration (in the open atmosphere) that co2 capability to influence warming diminishes as it level increases. The computer models almost invariably project temperature increases which higher than actual, and the difference between model output and actual is widening. The doubling/halving postulate assumes that “nothing else happens”…. so perhaps qualifies for plausibility, (Lindzen doesn’t think so) but not EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. An example of empirical evidence would be the correlation (tracking both up and down trends) between temperature and co2 levels (over geological periods). Co2 has been increasing since about the mid 1800s, so lots of things (including women’s skirts, and the stock market) have been gone up during at least brief interludes. So what?

                      As I pointed out earlier, our current warming (such as it is) began NOT in the mid 1850s, but, by definition, at the bottom of the LIA. So there’s been 300+ years of NATURAL WARMING before co2 increase would have had any impact on our temperature measurements (Argue with Dr. Evans if you disagree on this one.) THE warming duration was from the mid 70s to 1998. It has now been stalled almost as long as that warming.

                      Idso specializes in co2 science (recall the name of his website) DENYing any links he happens to have to peer-reviewed studies is a typical alarmist attitude. Why then should anyone trust the alarmists?

                      One reference for the 6,000 boreholes study can be found at Joanne Nova website. (Her spouse, Dr. David Evans is an Aussie physicist who worked on climate models there for years until he became disgusted with the supposed “science”.) The boreholes are not constrained to just regions where ice core measurements have been made. The MWP global trend shown by the boreholes is obvious. The alarmists have no justification for their claim that the MWP was not global.

                      What “glittering generalities” do you have in mind? Surely not Obama’s Alaskan visit. Surely not the bogus “97% consensus” claims (if I mentioned that on this website). Surely not the claim that our two weather satellites show no additional warming since 1998 (with perhaps a caveat for the recent El Nino which even NASA admits was large, and only then because I haven’t noticed any recent update in Monckton’s report) . Surely not the claim that both NOAA and NASA are desperately making a fuss about “hottest” recent year when differences in annual global temperature amongst recent years is miniscule, well within the uncertainty error. Surely not my claim that the alarmists are basing their panic on just over two recent decades of increasing warming which terminated in 1998.

                      “hop from topic to topic”….. There are SO MUCH conflicting data and that message must get out. (The only alarmist rebuttal is “gish gallop”.)

                      “My evolution of climate change phrasing is silly….” Sounds like just another version of “gish gallop”.

                      “conjuring Idsos….” You folks get sooo excited about Monckton and Idso. Still DENYing that those numerous links to peer-reviewed studies is at least as valid as any studies you’ve linked ?

                    • Bart_R May 20, 2016 at 9:31 AM

                      Your claims are wrong on their face.

                      “The “co2 doubling” does not take into consideration (in the open atmosphere) that co2 capability to influence warming diminishes as it level increases.”

                      How to explain this so you see that you’ve just contradicted yourself within a single sentence?

                      The reason the measure is given in terms of CO2 doubling is exactly to take into account the logarithmic tendency of the trend.
                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/d2f4c9bcb88a3f6700be3f850b14d9321b7990380f6768aa1f990768c85ad523.png

                      Do you see how the fit line bends ever so slightly downward?

                      That’s the influence of CO2 diminishing at higher levels. And at levels way beyond anything we’re talking about, the influence of CO2 would fall below the next strongest influence.. but right now, CO2 is five times more powerful than its nearest rival (particulates), and both CO2 and particulates come out of the same fossil waste dumping.. and that diminishing capacity is taken into account by measuring in terms of CO2 doubling instead of in linear terms such as ‘per unit’.

                      “The computer models almost invariably project temperature increases higher than the later actual temps, and the difference between model temps and later actual is widening.”

                      Again, you’re simply wrong.

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/a8cf242e8761c470b12ef65540de8c01abb8f3814d5ec4f525a1ccd6758fca29.png

                      The difference between Hansen 1988 Scenario C and actual is widening, as the actual gets hotter and hotter, and so we know Scenario C is too low. In 2015, however, after a span of being slightly lower than actual of only six years, Hansen Scenario B was caught up with by actual warming and overtaken in 2016 (not shown on the graph). Otherwise, Scenario B has been within error bars of actual for its entire span. Which is not what Hansen’s 1988 GCMs were designed to do: they’re simulations of an alternate universe with its own pattern of volcano and trade winds, like to our universe in scale but unlike in timing. When you remove for volcano and trade wind, then Hansen Scenario B is too low compared to actual.

                      “The doubling/halving postulate assumes that “nothing else happens”…. so perhaps qualifies for plausibility, (Lindzen doesn’t think so) but not EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE. ”

                      The Richard Lindzen who retired after three decades and 200 papers failing to prove his grossly wrong claims about climate, funded by Jim Inhofe to the tune of millions of taxpayer dollars?

                      Who cares what someone who’s always wrong thinks?

                      And again with your ’empirical evidence’ soundbite. The historical evidence of MLOST vs. CO2 is built on pure empirical evidence. You’re simply lying through your teeth about that, over and over again, Big Lie style. Your family must be so proud of you.

                      “An example of empirical evidence would be the correlation (tracking both up and down trends) between temperature and co2 levels over geological periods.”

                      https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/68adc63a2b2fd22128ad271ed85557317bb8b67419c96b124c31a79a783913c0.jpg
                      http://www.antarcticglaciers.org/glaciers-and-climate/ice-cores/ice-core-basics/

                      Both up, and down.

                      There are high resolution reconstructions as fine as 70-year granularity, showing that the known positive feedback relationship between temperature and CO2 level is locked within narrow spans.

                      There’s so much wrong what what you’ve written, it will take a while to respond to it all. But let’s start with just those three graphs showing you to have struck out three swings in a row.

                    • Denis Ables May 20, 2016 at 7:12 PM

                      Your bloviation is nonsense, and typical., The co2 now in the air already absorbs most of the few wavelengths it can. There are relatively few photons remaining at the right wavelengths. Log curves never attain 100%, but that doesn’t matter in the real world. What’s left is unlikely to even have a measurable impact. Clearly It will have much less impact than whatever effect the existing co2 level may have (supposedly) introduced.

                      Sorry, you’re also “simply wrong” about the “accuracy” of computer models. The spread between computer model output and actual temperatures is continuing to widen. These claims (including graphs of numerous models plus their alternative scenarios) are, naturally, provided by credible scientists on skeptical sites. And there is the separate point, that none of the models predicted this 18 year hiatus. Neither can the modelers explain it except by speculation. The models all include various estimates and assumptions, including feedback impacts,

                      Lindzen has retired from MIT, so now, not necessarily beholden to his benefactors. Your cult appears to devote considerable time to who pays skeptics, but rarely recognizes the existence of the enormous government trough it feeds from. Fossil fuel funding is insignificant compared to the government-funded climate change industry. It is a joke to believe that government agenda and its money provide no controls for the scientists feeding at that trough.

                      More gish…. Leaving aside the fact that there has been a hiatus insofar as additional warming there is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition which accompanies the greenhouse gas theory, namely that the first signs of this kind of warming should be in the troposphere about 10 km above the tropics. But weather balloons have searched for years and never found any sign of it. Santer evidently attempted a speculatve guess (not unlike warmists earlier speculations about the missing heat.) Nonetheless the missing hot spot implies that there is some other cause for our warming.

                    • Bart_R May 20, 2016 at 8:21 PM

                      You still at it?

                      CO2 is non-saturating, as was demonstrated by Plass in 1950; as its concentration increases, or as its energy increases, it increases in capacity to slow the progress of IR out of the atmosphere.

                      Your innumerate, frankly absurd claims are simply wrong. Small wonder David Evans has you wrapped around his little finger the way Jo Nova has him wrapped around hers. There’s nothing credible in either of their claims.. which I note you had to be dragged kicking and screaming to even mention where you got the claims from, and still have yet to provide page references or exact quotes.

                      This is simple: cite the peer-reviewed paper you want to talk about, by actual link to the paper itself on its publisher’s website or through the author directly, with page number and direct quotes, and then we can discuss your claims. Otherwise, you’re making stuff up, spinning, and have no credibility.

                    • Denis Ables May 20, 2016 at 9:02 PM

                      Unbelievable. Always the same bloviation. A claim that I’m wrong, and no useful content to prove the point. It’s the standard cult-like attitude. Never admit anything, obfuscate, bloviate, distract, and …lie (unless you really believe what you’re saying!)

                    • Bart_R May 20, 2016 at 10:02 PM

                      Specifics!

                      Give some specifics.

                      Where, what lines, exactly, do you mean?

                      You’re just handwaving over and over, and weaseling out as point by point your claims are dismantled, and all you do is skip a rail and move onto a new point or circle back and merely contradict.

                      The more you write, the more how clear it is you cannot back up your claims, and will play out the sham as long as possible.

                      Pay for the fossil waste dumping you do.

                    • Denis Ables May 21, 2016 at 8:19 AM

                      “Pay for the fossil waste dumping you do”…. Funny!

                      Now it’s not just constant accusations that skeptics are paid by the fossil fuel industry (You’d really get a torrent of skeptics kicking your butte if that was the case) but that skeptics (unlike Al Gore and those Hollywood folks running around on their own aircraft, or the politicians and government researchers, off to another international meeting on climate change) so now skeptics are also “fossil fuel waste dumpers”.

                      It’s amazing how far some otherwise educationed folks have deviated from anything resembling science, scientific method, and logic. Instead of seriously investigating skeptic claims against their dubious hypothesis of such things as – no empirical evidence, no greenhouse gas signature, and MWP being obviously a global event and likely warmer than now – they bloviate, obfuscate, distract, lie, and even call for censorship and jailing of doubters posing these issues. Amazing.

                      If the current herd of politicians weren’t so interested in taking advantage of this hobgoblin to scam the honest, hard-working taxpayers these dubious claims could easily be ignored and laughed off. As it stands this scam deserves to be added to the next version of “The Madness of Crowds….”

                    • Bart_R May 21, 2016 at 11:10 AM

                      Still seeing no specifics, nothing but handwave, denial and propaganda.

                      Pay for the fossil waste disposal services you use.

                    • Denis Ables May 21, 2016 at 11:37 AM

                      Amazing! No greenhouse gas signature, so the alarmist hypothesis is nullified. (and you claim that isn’t specific?)

                      1,000+ peer-reviewed studies on MWP being global and as warm, likely warmer than now, with links to all accessible via co2science.org. (No one study can confirm such a thing; it is the aggregate studies which do that job, but that’s not specific enough for you?

                      6,000+ boreholes which cover the globe and, as a compfetely separate entity from the 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies, show the MPW trend.

                      Other details (trees and vineyards no longer grow as far north as 1,000 years ago (or as far back as 4,000 years ago.

                      No empirical evidence showing that co2 level has ever had any impact on the planet’s temperature.

                      And skeptics are called DENIERs? Amazing !

                    • Bart_R May 21, 2016 at 3:53 PM

                      What exact, specific greenhouse gas signature do you mean?

                      Who told you there was no greenhouse gas signature?

                      Who told you the effect you claim is missing was a greenhouse gas signature?

                      Was it a peer-reviewed published study? Was it recent?

                      What is the citation? The title? The publication date? The page reference? The words the authors used?

                      Link to the original paper from the publisher’s website or, better, an author’s own institutional website if available.

                      Forget the 1000+ peer-reviewed studies. Cite ONE, but really actually cite it.

                      Until you do this, you’re just Gish Galloping around waving your hands, and no one has the least cause to take your claims seriously, because we can go directly to original authors whose works have passed peer review and read them for ourselves, as it’s very clear we can’t trust your third-hand interpretations.

                      The more you write, the more how much is wrong with your weak, ill-defined, inexact thinking becomes clear.

                    • Robert May 21, 2016 at 4:11 PM

                      This should be interesting; I wonder if I should pop some corn and call d.a. s response entertainment or just go pull a book from a shelf and actually learn something….

                    • Bart_R May 21, 2016 at 4:21 PM

                      Nothing about popcorn prevents learning.

                    • Robert May 21, 2016 at 4:23 PM

                      Good plan! Popcorn and a book!

                    • Robert May 21, 2016 at 4:12 PM
                    • Bart_R May 21, 2016 at 4:23 PM

                      Seems a bit repetitive, handwavy, nonspecific and unsupported.

                      You should get better quality popcorn, maybe?

                    • Robert May 21, 2016 at 4:31 PM

                      Bobsreddmill.com. gold standard. Sorta like ipcc, nasa,NOAA

                      My bet is Denis. A won’t cite anything but some denialist blogs or a cherrypicked paper or two that is cited by those blogs more often than in any further actual research.

                    • Bart_R May 21, 2016 at 4:43 PM

                      I find a few drops of fresh squeezed lime juice can really punch up popcorn.

                      Try pre-heating it, or using a spray bottle, for extra zing.

                    • Denis Ables May 21, 2016 at 4:13 PM

                      You’ve shown the readers nothing so far, except your ignorance. You have no understanding of climate science, only an eggregious belief, and on that basis you throw out all manner of insults? I’ll explain the GHG signature, but that’s for other readers’ information. I doubt you’ll even understand it, or the implications.

                      A necessary (but not sufficient) condition) for the GHG hypothesis to hold up is that there should be a warming in the troposphere (about 10km above the tropics.) The alarmist “scientists”, after struggling with the lack of this signature, went quiet. You shouldn’t have any problem googling that. Santer even claimed to see it in some really dubious data, but got laughed down on that bogus effort.

                      Insofar as the MWP studies, citing any one or two doesn’t prove much. It is in the aggregate that it confirms the global temperature. I do expect that even one at a distance should bring the alarmist claim into question. The links are all well organized at co2science.org.

                      You can learn more about the 6,000 boreholes by going to Joanne Nova’s website and googlng “boreholes”

                    • Bart_R May 21, 2016 at 4:34 PM

                      I’m not asking to be pointed at a disinformation website.

                      I’m pointing out that when you point people at disinformation websites, you have zero credibility.

                      Citation to original source, give a page reference, give a specific quote, because if you can’t defend your views with that sort of reference, then you must not have a defense.

                      It would be like me saying, “Tropospheric hot spot meme? Go to SkepticalScience.org where the links are well organized.”

                      I mean, I’d at least link to https://www.skepticalscience.com/tropospheric-hot-spot.htm the actual page in question, and even then, stopping there would be pretty weak, if I didn’t second-source with something like http://phys.org/news/2015-05-climate-scientists-elusive-tropospheric-hot.html and also http://theconversation.com/climate-meme-debunked-as-the-tropospheric-hot-spot-is-found-42055 and I wouldn’t stop until I could cite the original peer-reviewed published source at least by link http://www.atmos.uw.edu/~qfu/Publications/jtech.pochedley.2015.pdf and quote the actual authors’ own words:

                      The ratios from RSS, NOAA, and UW demonstrate tropical tropospheric amplification and are in general agreement with amplification from climate models, indicating that there is no significant discrepancy between observations and models for lapse rate changes between the surface and the full troposphere.

                      This shows that your repeated, wrong, loud, handwavy claims about lack of signature are completely bogus in too many ways to easily count.

                      The more you write, the more how wrong you are is clear.

                    • Denis Ables May 21, 2016 at 5:34 PM

                      and a “disinformation site” is what? any site which has beliefs other than yours?

                      Keep in mind that Dr. Idso at co2science.org may be a skeptic insofar as CAGW but it’s not clear he has any control over the authors of various MWP studies. Their funds and contacts are elsewhere.

                      There are more than 1,000+ peer-reviewed studies on the MWP. How many such studies would it take to kill the unjustifiable warmist claim that the MWP was not global?
                      Certainly a half dozen such studies sufficiently remote from each other and from Europe should be adequate to render that claim quite unlikely. These studies involve researchers and their organizations from 40+ countries, so A half dozen shouldn’t be difficult to find.

                      and the warministas feel no obligation to look into that because it’s a “disinformation site”?

                      You’re talking about citing sources. How about citing some studies proving that the MWP was not global? (Note there have to be at least a half dozen, remote from each other and from Europe.)

                      The only reason the warmists remain obstinate on this point is that, having admitted the MWP was likey warmer and global, when co2 level was known to be lower, they must also then admit that they can’t explain that. (which is why they DENY it). The entire reason for their chants of alarm on the current warming (such as it is) is because there is no other reason, which itself is a bogus argument.

                      A warmer global MPW demonstrates that SOMETHING else is controlling temperature. It is NOT co2.

                    • Bart_R May 21, 2016 at 5:46 PM

                      Blah-blah-blah excuse blah-blah-blah rationalization blah-blah-blah.

                      It’s simple. FIRST SOURCES. Go to the original publisher of the original paper, uncut, uninterpreted, unmolested by anyone not the original authors, having passed through peer review and publication.

                      This isn’t to say there’s no other possible source of information but scholarly works rigorously put through the safeguards of peer-reviewed publication; merely that going to the trouble of adding another layer of interpretation between the original and the audience is suspect at best, needless, and simply unacceptable even when there isn’t such ample evidence of bad faith as the Idsos have shown over the years.

                      So, until and unless you can abandon co2science and go straight to original sources, you have nothing interesting or credible to say.

                      You’ve failed utterly to do anything but waste time with your propaganda.

                      What sort of sickness prompts a mind to promote fossil waste dumping?

                      You want to use the scarce power of the air to dispose of your fossil wastes? Pay a Market-driven fossil waste disposal fee.

                    • Denis Ables May 21, 2016 at 5:56 PM

                      You’re providing absolutely no useful content. Merely mindlessly defending a belief which you cannot justify without providing links. Hard to distinguish between you and a religious zealot or cult-follower.

                      It sounds as if you’re also interested in giving the government power to control how much (and when) we take a breath !
                      Wow! and here I was thinking that the Donald was dangerous.

                    • Bart_R May 21, 2016 at 6:20 PM

                      Still more blah-blah-blah.

                      You have yet to directly cite a single first source to support a single claim you have made, which is remarkable considering the huge volumes of repetitious claims you have produced.

                      Privatization is the opposite of giving government power to control; privatization is where something the government controls is handed over to private sellers to put onto the Market, so the Law of Supply and Demand efficiently allocates scarce resources best.

                      Why do you hate Capitalism?

                    • Robert May 21, 2016 at 6:22 PM

                      Well done!

                    • Robert May 21, 2016 at 4:36 PM

                      Might wanna read up on the isotopes that demonstrate how much fossil fuel derived co2 is in the atmosphere.
                      “No greenhouse gas signature”.
                      Unless you meant something else and just need to write more clearly.

                    • Denis Ables May 21, 2016 at 5:17 PM

                      You don’t understand that the GHG AGW theory hypothesios includes a necessary (but not sufficient) condition, namely that there should be a warmer region in the troposphere, about 10km up, over the tropics. Weather balloons have been seaching for that “signature” for several years, with no luck. Without that signature, their hypothesis goes out the window, and they’re not off the hook if they ever do find it, because it’s still not sufficient.

                    • Robert May 21, 2016 at 6:15 PM

                      Really. You are on the intertubes claiming to be a climate specialist , or having a level of expertise, yet all we see are links to papers compiled at denialist blogs or more often cited on denialist blogs than in Google scholar. Point us to the best resources you can bring to the table.

                      Really, point us to the best resources you have supporting those assertions. A paper w your name as a coauthor would be a plus!

                    • Denis Ables May 21, 2016 at 7:02 PM

                      I have never claimed to be a “climate specialist”. Neither my education (math/physics, long ago) nor my work experience was in that area. I have followed the issue for the past few years with interest. You’re at least consistent, always wrong.

                      You also failed to understand the issue of independence between those studies and co2science, and the number of such studies and how few it would take to rebut the alarmist unjustified claim that the MWP was not global.

                      Really? All it takes is a “paper”?

                      It’s the “science” that you need to be exposed to.

                    • Robert May 21, 2016 at 8:12 PM

                      Your second para is an attempt to argue the science. Yet you claim no special skills or expertise. So, why do you think you have a better understanding than those thousands of scientists who have demonstrated their expertise in the their areas of specialization?

                      If you have some substantive body of research that show the findings of AR5 to be wrong, then develop a thesis and document your counterclaims as well as you can.

                    • Denis Ables May 21, 2016 at 9:17 PM

                      I’m sufficiently familiar with climate science to have many valid questions, which neither you nor alarmist PhD climatologists seem competent to answer, a shame. The scientific basis is available to anyone really interested in determining what is going on,but it takes some work.

                      In the meantime, as one of the harmless believers with no useful information to impart, believe on…..

                    • Robert May 22, 2016 at 9:37 AM

                      So. No expertise. Can’t cite a source. Got it.

                      Go back to your troposphere claim and try supporting that argument.

                    • Denis Ables May 22, 2016 at 12:02 PM

                      Readers can find sources, if they’re interested. (Those are the only readers worthwhile. Those who want spoon feeding generally use that pose as a simple minded attack on anyone who rocks their otherwise comfortable boat. In the case of the climate issue the term “expertise” is dubious, at best.
                      Why would I waste time providing you with “cites” You’ve already made your response clear, namely merely define all such as “disinformation”.

                      In the case of the GHG theory, as it pertains to AGW, that NECESSARY condition is well known. You’re either denying that factm, or not competent to google. Matters not to me which.

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 9:22 AM

                      You have not shown any useful content at any point in this conversation, so other readers should include that in their assessment.

                      I don’t have to support the FACT that there is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition that comes with the AGW hypothesis – a requirement that there be a warm area in the troposphere about 10km above the tropics. Your own “heros”, have been struggling with the lack of that “hot spot”, in spite of millions of radiosondes. They’ve now gone quiet (for obvious reasons.

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 9:42 AM

                      Yup. There are some people who want a debate. The are either Internet commentor who think they have expertise, or those supporting an industry that has been scientifically establishes he’d as at fault.

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 10:12 AM

                      More incoherent jibberish Robert?

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 10:16 AM

                      Show us the substantive body of research that supports an alternative hypothesis to what is in SPM AR5 WG1.

                      And, show us the public, business, environmental, and governmental policies based on that science.

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 10:48 AM

                      yup, more

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 11:08 AM

                      Interesting that asking multiple times for evidence supporting a claim is considered “More incoherent jibberish…”

                      Thanks for a clear statrment of the status of the science supporting your denierland assertions.

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 11:29 AM

                      Are you having trouble linking to the two referenced sites?

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 11:35 AM

                      The 3 year old blog and what else?

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 11:33 AM

                      Your ” missing-hot-spot/” claim is an excellent example of the incompetent and asinine claims put out by Internet commenters thinking they are arguing some science.

                      Did you do any research beyond a blog that is only referenced by Internet commenters?

                      If you want to defend a talking point, then start by mounting a substantive discussion of ALL the available research and analysis of the topic. At least reference a published review of the literature..

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 12:33 PM

                      You fail to recognize that MOST of the “scientists” who are proponents of AGW recognize that necessary condition. They would LOVE to render it a “:talking point” at this point.

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 1:44 PM

                      And, exactly where is the list of ” “scientists” ” ?
                      What papers can you cite where they say that?

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 1:45 PM

                      Really? Quote marks around scientists….

                      If they aren’t real, then that rather puts a hole in your claim of importance …..

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 11:38 AM

                      Try saying that so way it doesn’t sound like denialist gibberish.
                      “…necessary (but not sufficient) condition that comes with the AGW hypothesis -…”

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 12:36 PM

                      You don’t understand, obviously (and not unusual – for you).
                      That implies that even if the necessary condition is satisfied, it’s NOT sufficient. There needs to be MORE!

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 1:42 PM

                      “Sufficient” for what?

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 2:53 PM

                      What do you think: For validating the theory, of course.

                      A necessary condition for you to be alive is that you have access to oxygen. However, that is not sufficient. You need food too. I’m going to have to charge you Robert, if you continue to need this elementary school tutoring.

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 3:13 PM

                      You still have not established the validity of Evans’ claims.

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 3:16 PM

                      You’re being silly Robert. Are you just a kid?

                      That’s been done by the weather balloons.

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 3:38 PM

                      No, Evans claim. In his .pdf. That you repeat. That neither of you , in six years, have been willing to quote from any IPCC report.

                      You know the two claims. In the first section of his .pdf
                      The .pdf that has no footnote, no endnotes, no inline, no parenthetical….

                      ” According to IPPC climate theory, the signature of carbon emissions and
                      the signature of warming due to all causes during the recent global warming both
                      include a prominent ―hotspot‖ at about 10 – 12 km in the air over the tropics. But the
                      warming pattern observed by radiosondes during the recent global warming contains
                      no trace of any such hotspot. Therefore:
                      1. IPCC climate theory is fundamentally wrong.
                      2. To the extent that IPCC climate theory is correct in predicting a hotspot due to
                      extra carbon dioxide, we know that carbon emissions did not cause the recent
                      global warming.
                      The hotspot is not incidental to IPCC climate theory—it lies at its heart, …”

                      Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

                      C. Hitchens “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 3:27 PM

                      Silly. I’ll give you an easier one. Establish that Obama’s claims that a couple of Alaskan glaciers are receding indicates “anthropogenic global warming”.

                      We’re between ice ages. There will be some receding glaciers during a warming period. (When there are no receding glaciers, we’re likely into the next ice age!)

                      Also, it has been established that one of the two glaciers, “Exit” has been receding since about 1730, so more than a hundred years BEFORE co2 began rising and also long before our industrial revolution.

                      This was the fearless leader of your cult. Surely he has better science advisers than that !

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 3:32 PM

                      Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

                      C. Hitchens “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 2:50 PM

                      Your .pdf says
                      “According to IPPC climate theory, the signature of carbon emissions and
                      the signature of warming due to all causes during the recent global warming both
                      include a prominent ―hotspot‖ at about 10 – 12 km in the air over the tropics. But the
                      warming pattern observed by radiosondes during the recent global warming contains
                      no trace of any such hotspot. Therefore:
                      1. IPCC climate theory is fundamentally wrong.
                      2. To the extent that IPCC climate theory is correct in predicting a hotspot due to
                      extra carbon dioxide, we know that carbon emissions did not cause the recent
                      global warming.
                      The hotspot is not incidental to IPCC climate theory—it lies at its heart, …”

                      And we note that there is no footnote, endnote, parenthetical…… Now. Honestly, did that not make you have a bit of a skeptical moment? Something on the lines of ‘ Gee, this guy -who has basically published nothing in the field, is making three ginormous claims.

                      The first one has nothing cited – no quote from any IPCC report.

                      He also claims “IPCC climate theory”, which seems a bit off since the theory is from the body of published , peer reviewed literature; not the IPCC, who basically have compiled that body of research into a review of the literature.

                      And then, despite the nearly two centuries of published research, this guy- who has basically published nothing in the field – is saying virtually everybody who has demonstrated their expertise in their specialized field is wrong.

                      Then, to top it off, this guy can’t even keep himself from going completely off-piste by adding a political rant to the end of his .pdf .

                      Really, not a bit of that made you stop and ponder exactly how valuable a contribution this guy is making to the discussion?

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 2:59 PM

                      Robert. You’re in need of more tutoring. The climate researchers at the IPCC have long since recognized the first part of that truth, namely the necessary condition, and they’ve struggled with it and (as I recall) Santer temporarily thought he found the “hot spot”, but that was ludicrous and he was laughed at.

                      It’s not necessary for Dr. Evans to repeat the entire history and earlier discourse and admissions. He was addressing those who know something about climate science.

                      If someone tells you an apple is going to fall (rather than fly) from the tree, do you demand a footnote which describes Newton’s investigation? That’s been done much earlier and understood by most folks.

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 3:04 PM

                      Then, since Dr. Evans couldn’t be bothered to actually cite the evidence for that claim, you as his acolyte, should.
                      Which IPCC report makes the claim he and you are claiming says that?

                      And what is the exact quote?

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 3:06 PM

                      haha. More tutoring, eh Robert?

                      If you’re too lazy do do your own research you’re going to have to pay somebody to do it for you. I haven’t the time nor interest in pursuing that.

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 3:29 PM

                      Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

                      “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

                      You, and Evans both make a claim. His is 6 years old. You parrot it.

                      And neither have actually brought forward the quote supporting the claim.

                      6 years.
                      No evidence. Well except for the ever popular denialist claim ‘ go look it up’. And your dodge, “I haven’t the time nor interest in pursuing that.”.

                      An Internet commenter who hides behind their hidden history.
                      Who can’t be bothered to cite sources supporting their claims.
                      C. Hitchens then.

                      Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

                      “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 3:43 PM

                      That quote in boldface is not appropriate for you warministas. It’s been used often by skeptics, because the “extraordinary claim” is that human activity is causing our current warming” (such as it is). Why? Because governments have found the AGW issue favorable for their “extraordinary” agendas. It is the warmists which must provide evidence before we bankrupt ourselves addressing a non-problem.

                      There is no empirical evidence that co2 level has EVER had any impact the planet’s temperature, even over geologic periods, when co2 level was 20 times higher than now. You have ignored that

                      You have also ignored the fact that both our weather satellites show no additional warming since 1998, at least right up to the end of 2015, perhaps longer, and that change (if there the hiatus did indeed stop) is only because of an El Nino which cranked up before midyear 2015. (Even NASA admits the El Nino is a NATURAL event, and that it is (?was) a big one.) No computer modeler has been able to explain this 18+year hiatus in temperature increase, even as co2 level is at its highest. There have been, literally, dozens of speculative reasons by the “scientists” who are proponents of AGW, as to what happened to the “missing het”, all of which bogus, and the whole ruckus indicating how “unsettledf” the science is.

                      Lindzen called the AGW hypothesis implausible.

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 4:10 PM

                      And, after aweek. It boils down to….

                      Tinfoil….
                      “Why? Because governments have found the AGW issue favorable for their “extraordinary” agendas.”

                      And then endless reciting of denialist blog assertions.

                      And no supporting evidence.

                      Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

                      C. Hithens. “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 6:04 PM

                      .. and poor soul Robert (just as warmist PhD climatologists), have no answer for the the lack of additional warming since 1998 (even as co2 level continues to rise), nor do they have any empirical evidence that co2 has ever had any impact on the temperature. This is definitely “extraordinary claims”, and needs “extraordinary evidence”. None being offered, obviously. (Also readers, please note, no defense of warmist cult leader Obama’s claims of evidence – he who has access to all the science advising HE wants).

                      Robert is in the position of defending the classical little bearded guy standing on the corner with a big sign declaring that the end of the world is near. He’s pursuing hobgoblins, operating as a useful idiot for the authorities.

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 6:17 PM

                      And no supporting evidence.

                      Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

                      C. Hithens. “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 7:40 PM

                      Robert asks for proof and when received calls it a “disinformation source”. But he cannot provide any scientific justification as to why he is just a rabid believer. Definitely a member of the Church of Climate Change.

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 7:46 PM

                      You used quotemarks around ” “disinformation source”. ” You are telling readers that I used that exact phrase in a reply to some source you cited.

                      But you don’t cite where.

                      Just as you won’t quote and cite support for your various denialist assertions.

                      Intellectually lazy and dishonest.

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 8:01 PM

                      LOL. How about “disinformation” source? You’re really unworthy of any response. Citing anything such as this is ludicrous, but quite consistent with your earlier jabber.

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 9:26 PM

                      You used quotemarks dishonestly.
                      You’ve refused to cite any source that would support your assertions.

                      Which IPCC report makes the claim he and you are claiming says that?

                      And what is the exact quote?

                      Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

                      C. Hitchens. “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 9:45 PM

                      So, where’s the extraordinary evidence. It takes a LITTLE person do make a BIG deal about where a quotation mark (in a online discussion) belongs. Bye.

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 10:23 PM

                      “There’s not even any empirical evidence.”

                      Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

                      C. Hitchens. “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 10:35 PM

                      You lied. You can’t source a quote. Doesn’t matter where r it is a comment here or a piece of published waiting in a science paper.

                      And now you are attempting to reinterpret what you did. With the evidence in full view. Really good example of how dishonest a person has to be to be an Anthropogenic Climate Change denialist.

                      “BTW, it takes a LITTLE mind to make a BIG deal about where a quotation mark (in a online discussion) belongs.”

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 6:39 PM

                      A note : ” little bearded guy” is denier speak for 97% +,of the science, the unanimous agreement of every scientific organization in the world, and the pesky little fact that there is a signed document acknowledging ACC and a global effort to combat it.

                      Tinfoil….
                      “Why? Because governments have found the AGW issue favorable for their “extraordinary” agendas.”

                      https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/redistribute_ben_stein8217s_money/#comment-2691377103

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 4:33 PM

                      Yup, real science being discussed here, ” “scientists” ”

                      Then, claims a scientist says something…. but can’t quote ….

                      Btw:
                      http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2014/jan/06/climate-change-climate-change-scepticism

                    • LTJ October 14, 2017 at 10:04 AM

                      “all of which bogus”

                      ROTFLMAO!

                      Well, THAT’s conclusive proof that the oceans didn’t function as a heat sink (the most popular of the theories you’ve dismissed without rhyme or reason). As well as dozens of other theories you’ve summarily dismissed, eh?

                      Forget science, you don’t even do logic.

                      BTW, the cherry-picked 18 year period of “hiatus” is a joke in and of itself (because we track everything in 18 year increments, don’t we?), and you have your facts wrong – 2014 at least tied for the hottest year on record PRIOR to the El Nino event.

                    • Denis Ables May 23, 2016 at 3:02 PM

                      Dr. Evans was a modeler during the period with the IPCC was censoring publications by any skeptics. But you never heard about that either, did you?

                    • Robert May 23, 2016 at 3:31 PM

                      Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.

                      C. Hitchens “Mommie Dearest”, Slate, 2003

                      Support it.

                      “IPCC bunch was censoring publications by any skeptics.”

                    • Robert May 21, 2016 at 8:14 PM

                      What does that even mean?
                      “…issue of independence between those studies and co2science…”

                    • Adrian Vance May 30, 2016 at 6:47 PM

                      “Log curves never obtain 100%!” What kind of gibberish is that bullshit. You are a fraud.

                    • Denis Ables May 30, 2016 at 10:13 PM

                      The curve in question is asymptotic to 100%. Do you understand limits?

                    • Denis Ables May 31, 2016 at 8:56 AM

                      Do you understand that co2 capability for increasing temperature diminishes as its level increases? And co2 level is now quite far out on that curve so its potential effect on temperature is very small already – see Joanne NOva’s website,for example. (Dr. Evans, an Aussie physicist and climate modeler, is her spouse.)

                      Labeling someone a FRAUD because you don’t understand, is REALLY STUPID!. In this case it’s also ludicrous and reflects on you, or perhaps merely on what you’ve recently been snoking (?drinking). I’m asking questions about the dubious GHG/AGW hypothesis. How can asking such questions be fraudulent? No warmist yet has provided satisfactory answers. Perhaps you’d care to explain why this libelous distraction?

                    • Adrian Vance May 31, 2016 at 12:49 PM

                      Close, but no cigar. Per Le Chatelier increasing CO2 results in water formation from the vapor which is seven times the IR absorber as CO2 and the result is a decline in atmospheric heating as was shown by WWII when we burned down Europe and Japan increasing CO2 which forced water vapor out of the atmosphere.

                      If you think being married to a “climate scientist” is a credential then you are even stranger than was first apparent, but the facts of climate heating are such that any Junior High School sharp science student can learn all there is to know about it. No Ph.D. is required to understand the Le Chatelier Equation for the atmosphere.

                      The only fraud committed in this area is that by people like Jim Hansen and Charles Keating who wrote false papers, reported false data, promoted false concepts, lied about their work and so on. It is readily apparent and easily shown in both cases, as I do in “Vapor Tiger” on sale at Amazon.com for as little as $2.99 in Kindle format you can read on your computer with a free Kindle Reader from Amazon.com.

                    • Denis Ables May 31, 2016 at 1:38 PM

                      I mention Dr. Evans as Joanne’s spouse so reasonable readers who otherwise might not know, that there is climate science and experience in Nova’s referenced piece. As I recall, Dr. Judith Curry’s site also carried that same information about the diminishing impact of co2 on temperature as its level increases. Joanne Nova happens to be a science writer, and is more than capable of recognizing there’s no end of actions and BS emanating from the “scientists” who are proponents of AGW.

                    • Adrian Vance May 31, 2016 at 2:52 PM

                      The “claims I make” include the Le Chatelier Principle, which is purely mathematical and the Medieval Warming, which has been well documented in the literature by many studies of the plant growth records in England up to Scotland. Such plant records can be translated into very clear pictures of climates at that time as plants are very specifid in the numbers of “degree days” they need to produce, mature and cast seed or produce fruit.

                    • Denis Ables May 31, 2016 at 4:33 PM

                      You’re preaching to the choir on MWP.

                      On Le Chatelier Principle (which I’m not familiar with) you included commentary about WW II fires which appeared (to me) to be the basis for that theory. If so, it’s more than mathematics and sounds as if a correlation between those fires and certain atmospheric meaurements at that time. If, instead, the WW II fires – along with various other measurements were confirming that theory then I’d certainly agree that it was stronger.

                    • Adrian Vance May 31, 2016 at 5:48 PM

                      The Le Chatelier Principle is the basis of much aqueous, solution chemistry and all gas/vapor physics. It is fairly simple. To wit:

                      The thermodynamic behavior of gases in the atmosphere is defined by the Le Chateleier Principle, “The products of the concentrations, in moles per liter, of the reactants over the product of the concentrations of the products equals a constant.” A “mole” is the substance’ molecular weight in grams. The brackets indicate quantities are in moles. For the gases involved in atmospheric heating, water vapor and carbon dioxide, the equation is:

                      [CO2g] x [H2Og] / [H2Ol] = Kt where “t” is the Absolute temperature.

                      The reaction is water vapor changing to water liquid as water vapor heats the atmosphere and water liquid does not. Water vapor captures seven times more infrared energy, IR, from sunlight as carbon dioxide. Thus, we modify the expression to see the effect of adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Thusly:

                      [H2Og] = Kt x [H2Ol] / [CO2g]

                      Clearly, increasing CO2 reduces the amount of water vapor in the air and where water vapor is seven times the absorber of IR as CO2 increasing CO2 cools the atmosphere!

                      This is what happened just before, during and after WWII as we prepared for it, fought it and rebuilt after. The decline was so great the climatologists predicted an ice age in the 70’s. It was only after Jim Hansen and Albert Gore, Jr. lied about CO2 that we heard of “anthropogenic global warming.”

                    • Adrian Vance May 22, 2016 at 1:24 PM

                      Pick any temperature data point on the above chart and you will see that CO2 concentration follows. That means temperature is cause and CO2 is effect. It is not the other way around.